![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I trying to figure the level of cometary/asteroid activity, again for -
100 MY. I found one article that tells about the "Last Heavy Bombardment", LHB, that ended around -3.8 BY, not long (all things relative in this domain) before life appears on Earth. I can't find any other period of LHB after that, or any other definite level of bombardment for that matter. The asteroid/comet that hit Earth -65 MY and contributed to the end of dinosaurs wouldn't have been part of a noticeably more active period in that regard. So, the model I'm building in my head is that when Earth is forming, all sorts of planetoids, comets and asteroids are aggregating/impacting. Once the planets and moons are formed, it gets more or less quiet on that front. From then on (-3.8 BY), it's relatively stable. The solar system's various bodies exert tidal forces on the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud, and, with more or less regularity, new comets detach from the Oort Cloud, new asteroids leave their old orbit, and eventually or never impact some planet, moon or the Sun itself. There is no lenghty gradual pattern of diminishing impacts. Thus, I can't say that around -100 MY, there is more comets or asteroids on a potential collision course with Earth. It's not scientifically defendable that, let's say, the solar system gets safer in that regard as time passes. Is that heresy ? Does anyone know of some graphic that would show the impact/time ratio since the birth of our planet ? I haven't found any. Thanks! Zague |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Zague wrote:
Thus, I can't say that around -100 MY, there is more comets or asteroids on a potential collision course with Earth. It's not scientifically defendable that, let's say, the solar system gets safer in that regard as time passes. Is that heresy ? I haven't looked up references, so I'm replying from memory of various articles I've read over the year. The conventional view is that the solar system did get safer compared to its early life. The disk around the sun from which the planets formed was originally denser. As the material in the disk accreted into planets and smaller bodies, that material came out of the disk, so the space between planets, and especially in the planetary orbits, became less dense. There were fewer bodies to crash into Earth because they had already crashed into Earth in the first few billion years. The forming planets swept the dust and particles that were in their path, adding them to the planetary mass. So, just as I expect to find less dirt on my kitchen floor after I've been sweeping it a while, I expect to find fewer impacts on Earth after Earth has been sweeping its space for a while. The impacts we see today are mostly from objects in eccentric orbits that originate from further out in the solar system. -- Glenn Holliday |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks Glen. It seems that after the planets formed, impacts are high
for still some time and then we get into a rather stable state that could only be changed by major events like a close encounter with another star. It could correspond to some inverse exponential curve where the number of impacts will diminish rapidly and the system will cruise for a long time on a somewhat asymptotic line. I've read somewhere that there's a little more activity every 100 MY or so, but I don't have more than that. It might as well be some confusion with the probability of a Chicxulub size collision which is also in the order or one every 100 MY. Zague |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks Glen. It seems that after the planets formed, impacts are high
for still some time and then we get into a rather stable state that could only be changed by a major event like a close encounter with another star. It could correspond to some inverse exponential curve where the number of impacts will diminish rapidly and the system will cruise for a long time on a somewhat asymptotic line. I've read somewhere that there's a little more activity every 100 MY or so, but I don't have more than that. It might as well be some confusion with the probability of a Chicxulub size collision which is also in the order or one every 100 MY. Zague |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Technology | 40 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers | Cris Fitch | Policy | 82 | March 24th 04 04:28 PM |
Delta V Heavy as a manned launch vehicle? | Ruediger Klaehn | Policy | 23 | January 29th 04 06:23 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 5 | August 10th 03 10:58 PM |
Stars rich in heavy metals tend to harbor planets, astronomers report(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 21st 03 05:45 PM |