I didn't waste my time reading the whole of this thread. But I will address the absolutely atrocious analysis work done here.
For Reference, all this is work done by one Mr.Oraghan at SB. PM glossed over that fact except for a throw away line and is basicially trying to create the impression that it is his. We do not have an explicit rule against plagiarism, but as someone who does a lot of analysis, I think stuff like this is a good example of why we should. Of course, there is a wide gulf between what I've done and what this guy does. Mr.Oraghan is one of the many sockpuppets of some twit from that RSA cesspit. He believes, among other things, that power is irrelevant to the effects of a process, that conservation of energy is not in fact true, and can't do basic math. This will come into play here shortly.
PunkMaister wrote:
That is the episode but if you think it validates your claim of the asteroids being about the size of a jumper think again, and it is that video that provides the evidence to the contrary and here it is:
First is a comparison between the overall size of the main tower and the jumpers here:
We can see clearly how big and large the circumference of the building is in relation to the ship's overall size...
Failure to correct for perspective when measuring the Puddle Jumper. Which makes the rest Error Carried Forward, but lets run through it anyways since it ends up being irrelevant.
Quote:
Second we have an asteroid about to impact said tower here:
And here it is you see to validate your claim it has to be that either the puddle jumpers somehow grew in size or the tower in question shrank which we know it cannot be. The asteroid envelopes the whole width of the building as is about to hit!
Again, failure to correct for perspective. We do not know the relative positions of the asteroid, tower, and camera. The more conservative approach (and as we shall see, the correct one) would be to assume that it is close to the ship that has been heading towards it at high acceleration the entire time, but that would drive down the size of the asteroid and thus the power of the event. And SB analysis is all about getting the value you want, not about figuring out a consistent and accurate value.
Quote:
And finally we have another size reference as the puddle jumper maneuvers up and away from the tower after it destroys the offending asteroid:
So while the asteroids were probably not kilometers wide they were certainly in orders to 8 and even 20 times bigger than the jumpers in question that one was easily 20 times the size of the jumper...
If you want to lie, yes, one could certainly draw that conclusion. However if you seek to determine accurate values, you will notice that if you assume that the puddle jumper does not magically change size, it is more consistent for a much smaller asteroid being closer to the puddlejumper in image 2. It is an incredibly simple exercise to subtend the angle in a manner similar to how one covers the moon with your thumb, even without numbers. Given that we have the puddlejumper for reference we can do this relative to it. Eyeballing it, the PJ covers about 3x as much of the screen as the asteroid. For that asteroid to be 20x the diameter of the PJ, there would need to be a separation of multiple kilometers between them. If that were the case, then there would be no need for the evasive action we see in image 3.
So we have intentional misrepresentation of the scene in question to inflate the numbers. Which is of course the point, PunkMaister and the others at SB are looking for high values, not an accurate assessment. This turns out to be a trend.
PunkMaister wrote:
I need to correct the overall scales I posted earlier as is actually 2,3 or more times larger than the jumpers and not 20. This darn connection just keeps breaking off darn it! Anyhow here are some calcs about the whole deal by Mr.Oraghan.
Quote:
A 10 meters wide asteroid has a mass of 1220 tons for a vlume of 524 m³.
That is 2,328.2442748091603053435114503817 kg/m³.
Rounded to 2,328.24 kg/m³.
In typical SB fashion they work back from pretty much any starting point they want to get whatever figures they want. Apparently that makes more sense to them than doing research. This is a good example of that, but another one that I won't be surprised if PM trots out was the time they took a magazine line about zero point energy having enough energy in the volume of a coffee cup to boil the oceans and worked from that, leading to a long argument about what was the valid size for a coffee cup.
Anyway, we have effectively an arbitrary density for a given asteroid rather than making assumptions about it. For carbonaceous types graphite would have been a better base assumption.
Also, apparently he has no idea what "rounding" is, needing to go to 28 decimal places. I suspect this is an attempt to make the work look really precise and adopt an artificial air of validity. Of course, looking accurate and being accurate are totally different things.
Quote:
Let's say that certain debris were 1 m wide.
An asteroid, assumed as a sphere, being 1 meter wide, has a volume of 1 m³.
[/quote]Yes ladies and gentlemen, that is correct. Here Mr Oraghan apparently thinks a sphere and a cube are one and the same. A sphere with a diameter of 1 meter will have a volume of ~0.52 meters^3, while a cube 1 meter on a side will have a volume of 1 m^3.
The alternative is that Mr Oraghan is a lying sack of shit who is trying to artificially inflate his numbers. It's like a choose your own adventure.
Quote:
The debris move at 19.5 meters over .25 seconds, or 78 m/s.
We know the scaling is off, so this is highly suspect.
Quote:
The kinetic energy is:
E = 1/2 x m x v²
E = .5 x 2,328.24 x 6084
E = 7,082,506.08 joules (for an asteroid of 2,328.24 kg)
So we get a ratio of:
E = 3,042 joules / kg
If applied to the whole asteroid's mass, and remembering that a noticable portion of the asteroid was beyond that range two frames earlier, I tried to get the total energy for an asteroid which was 24.75 meters wide:
All of this is highly suspect given the above flaws. By the way, note that there is zero attempt to justify an asteroid diameter of 24.75 meters.
Quote:
Mass of a 24.75 m wide granite asteroid: 18,496,000 kg
Total E = 56,264,832,000 joules.
Squid's E = 28,132,416,000 J.
I don't know if it's quite a good way to obtain the energy...
Granite is formed from volcanic activity, when molten rock is subjected to extreme pressure. Something tells me there is very little in the way of molten rock of intense pressure in an asteroid field. Further granite has a density of ~2750 kg/m^3 which doesn't match his little derivation above.
Have at him boys.