(meteorobs) "Forecast" of fireballs from NEO visit - huh?

[MstrEman]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Wayne Hally <meteoreye at comcast.net> wrote:
> No merit or correlation whatsoever.
>

So I guess Hubble's capture last year of an apparent fresh asteroid
collision and attendant swarm of hundreds of thousands of visible
objects forming a comet-like tail is what?  a figment of NASA's
imagination?  "Duh we knowledge keepers know it can't happen
because...well... because we said!"
<http://www.spacedog.eu/solar-system/asteroids/asteroid-collision-caught-by-hubble.html>

Turns out the collision happened in the spring of 2009 and it took the
Hubble team another year and a half to notice it.  Do you suppose it
was so improbable as NEO associated debris streams that they never
bothered to look either?

Why are we slow to comprehend that ALL meteors and  ALL meteorites by
definition represent NEOs in earth crossing orbits? NEOs of the 3rd
kind in fact! We know at least one major shower is associated with an
asteroid debris stream even if we don't know where all the larger
chunks are--maybe they were short stopped in mid-stream by
intersecting the moon or earth before mankind was around.  All those
craters came from somewhere and unless one believes that
asteroids/NEOs only break into a few large lonely parts--look again at
the dispersion of the remnants of P/2010 A2 and particle sizes.  Why
do we track asteroid families back to original collision orbital
intersections if debris streams can't happen?  While there are perhaps
no NEO's large enough for our observing limitations--that have large
enough companions to also track, one can not legitimately say that
none exist.  Wayne's opinion of "no merit to looking" will someday
either be validated or invalidated. So one of us needs to keep a crow
recipe handy.

How can any scientifically minded group legitimately up and proclaim
"no point in trying to correlate data"  if they've never looked at the
data to disprove it?  I researched and wrote a 2 part report on the
significance of the potential NEO associated debris streams. I
introduced in the "green fireball analysis"  why observers needed to
expand the envelope of rational thought in regard to what they should
be looking for.  I recall it was Wayne who was most vocal about
demanding "proof" or wanting to see data.  I guess he missed  part 1
which addressed his longstanding refusal to consider what significance
there maybe with "green fireballs". Part 2 was canceled owing to the
prejudice against new ideas no matter how well underpinned with links
to research and specific peer reviewed facts.

 I am reminded of the cartoon with two ostriches in conversation
--while their heads were stuck in the sand.  They were proclaiming
"Nagh  there are no lions around here! (if we can't see them)"

As there is such a negative response in this community to looking at
data period...seems it is just collected...the thought of spending
time pondering a link with NEOs and supposed sporadics is futile.  The
keepers hath proclaimed ergo it is the fact certain.  So No, Daniel,
the keepers of the observing faith dogmatically proclaim  it does not
exist therefore no one need bother to go looking to look for a link.
They are just all sporadics. But Daniel I do go along exactly with the
manner in which you addressed the question.

But if it doesn't exist-I wonder why most fireballs are observed --and
therefore more meteorites known to fall in early spring than any time
of the year if there are not recurring, related, orbiting debris
streams to feed them.  Streams unlike cometary streams which are
renewed with each orbit, streams which are dispersed for the very
orbital factors you mention --plus pure depletion as very little
secondary collisions would occur to replenish what is scooped up is no
longer a marker for the original orbit.

Someday when meteorite researchers start pairing meteorite falls and
dates that have orbital data , and when astronomers start looking
upstream, chances are good we will find a NEO with spectral matching
to our meteorites and someone will throw the meteorite back on the
shelf and grumble  "Nagh regardless of the data everyone knows they
can't be related".

A hypothesis has been proposed and a call for data has been
submitted-- so what is wrong with looking along the orbit plus a few
days either side of intersection to see if there is a basis for a more
formal data collection? Nothing-- Unless there are some afraid that
the data might actually start showing up information that someone
wants suppressed.

Elton

> -----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Daniel Fischer
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: MPML at yahoogroups.com; meteorobs at meteorobs.org
> Subject: (meteorobs) "Forecast" of fireballs from NEO visit - huh?
>
> "A close approach by NEO Astroid [sic] 2009 TM8 and its accompanying debris
> will bring us some large green fireball meteors just prior to and just after
> the 17OCT2011," proclaims
> http://lunarmeteoritehunters.blogspot.com/2011/10/close-neo-approach-to-brin
> g-large-green.html - is there *any* merit to that? I mean, why would a NEO -
> that was kicked out of the main belt a long time ago - still be accompanied
> by any small debris particles which are affected by very different radiation
> pressure, Yarkovsky, Poynting-Robertson and whatnot orbital effects? Or
> observation-wise: Has there even been a significant statistical correlation
> established between NEO approaches and bolide recordings? Data on both are
> now being collected in a quite systematic way, so matching tables shouldn't
> be too hard ...
>
> Dan