Comments on: Broken-up Asteroids Found Orbiting White Dwarfs http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/ Space and astronomy news Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:07:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ian O'Neill http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-49330 Ian O'Neill Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:01:24 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-49330 Lol. I live in LA, and I'd love to contribute to this debate about the size of this little Californian town... but I can't. But I did attend the press conference on this article and it was awesome! Also, there is shedloads of work going into the whole shredded asteroid thing around white dwarfs. Awesome article Nancy! But look out, I have a UT exclusive on the horizon, using this kind of research for something quite profound. Watch this space.... Cheers, Ian ;-) Lol. I live in LA, and I'd love to contribute to this debate about the size of this little Californian town… but I can't. But I did attend the press conference on this article and it was awesome! Also, there is shedloads of work going into the whole shredded asteroid thing around white dwarfs. Awesome article Nancy!

But look out, I have a UT exclusive on the horizon, using this kind of research for something quite profound. Watch this space….

Cheers, Ian ;-)

]]> By: Marco http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48769 Marco Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:59:01 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48769 Come on folks. The presumed measurement of the arteroid is given with the number "about 200 kilometers". The bit about LA County was just to provide some perspective. It is no different than itty-bitty-thing scientists talking about the size of an object in relation to a human hair. Again, that gives perspective to laymen. If you are inclined to get all wrapped around the axle on this LA thing, go to the article, do a Ctrl-A, then Ctrl-C, open a word processor of your choice, then do a Cnrl-V. Find the offending 'measurement'. Highlight it and then hit the delete key. Perhaps then it will be a less confusing article for you. As for the adults who are reading the article, I suspect you can read it unmodified. Come on folks. The presumed measurement of the arteroid is given with the number "about 200 kilometers". The bit about LA County was just to provide some perspective. It is no different than itty-bitty-thing scientists talking about the size of an object in relation to a human hair. Again, that gives perspective to laymen. If you are inclined to get all wrapped around the axle on this LA thing, go to the article, do a Ctrl-A, then Ctrl-C, open a word processor of your choice, then do a Cnrl-V. Find the offending 'measurement'. Highlight it and then hit the delete key. Perhaps then it will be a less confusing article for you. As for the adults who are reading the article, I suspect you can read it unmodified.

]]> By: buster http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48710 buster Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:11:15 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48710 i agree. the text should be either removed or changed into something like "almost twice as large as Los Angeles County" i agree. the text should be either removed or changed into something like "almost twice as large as Los Angeles County"

]]> By: Salacious B. Crumb http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48684 Salacious B. Crumb Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:23:48 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48684 Let's get this right... Article statement "The biggest of the bunch was once about 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter, a bit larger than Los Angeles County." Definition of "Los Angeles County", one of five counties in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Area of Los Angeles County is 4,752 sq.mi (12,308 km^2), Therefore this County covers a mean size of about 69 miles or 110.9km. If 110.9 km is about half 200 km. Ergo,the statement that it is "a bit larger than Los Angeles County" is factually incorrect. Let's get this right…
Article statement
"The biggest of the bunch was once about 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter, a bit larger than Los Angeles County."
Definition of "Los Angeles County", one of five counties in the Greater Los Angeles Area.
Area of Los Angeles County is 4,752 sq.mi (12,308 km^2), Therefore this County covers a mean size of about 69 miles or 110.9km. If 110.9 km is about half 200 km. Ergo,the statement that it is "a bit larger than Los Angeles County" is factually incorrect.

]]> By: Mr. Obvious http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48668 Mr. Obvious Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:46:02 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48668 Salacious Just go with the measurement in kilometers, and don't worry about the additional description. If you can't figure that much out... then you aren't going to be able to handle anything more complicated. ...the greater LA area has more than one county... obviously, since the size given (for the area) is much larger than the 200km figure. Simple algebra and common sense. Salacious

Just go with the measurement in kilometers, and don't worry about the additional description. If you can't figure that much out… then you aren't going to be able to handle anything more complicated.

…the greater LA area has more than one county… obviously, since the size given (for the area) is much larger than the 200km figure. Simple algebra and common sense.

]]> By: Salacious B. Crumb http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48649 Salacious B. Crumb Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:19:21 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48649 Now I am totally confused. If Los Angeles county is less than 125 km across, why say it is "a bit larger than 200km"? Wiki says "Los Angeles County borders 70 miles (110 km) of coast on the Pacific Ocean." - an area, including land and water. Even wiki says first off; "The Greater Los Angeles Area, or the Southland, (not to be confused with the Los Angeles Metro Area which includes only Los Angeles and Orange Counties.)" According to wiki, even The Greater Los Angeles Area is 4, 500 square miles (12,581 sq. km.) , meaning the area has the mean diameter only about 67 km (112 km}. Logically I think, it would have been so much better to say the objects were he diameter equivalent to the distance between Los Angeles and San Diego, which is roughly 209 km (130 miles)? Perhaps even the diameter of minor planet No.6, Hebe or No.7 Iris would also be appropriate? At least this gives some impression that can be understood by anyone. Being non-American, and never visiting the U.S. (find being fingerprinted, biometric data testing totally abhorrent -especially when they a not destroyed when you leave - but that's another matter) - anyway well perhaps you can see my point. Regardless, thanks for the information. Now I am totally confused. If Los Angeles county is less than 125 km across, why say it is "a bit larger than 200km"? Wiki says "Los Angeles County borders 70 miles (110 km) of coast on the Pacific Ocean." – an area, including land and water.
Even wiki says first off; "The Greater Los Angeles Area, or the Southland, (not to be confused with the Los Angeles Metro Area which includes only Los Angeles and Orange Counties.)"
According to wiki, even The Greater Los Angeles Area is 4, 500 square miles (12,581 sq. km.) , meaning the area has the mean diameter only about 67 km (112 km}.
Logically I think, it would have been so much better to say the objects were he diameter equivalent to the distance between Los Angeles and San Diego, which is roughly 209 km (130 miles)? Perhaps even the diameter of minor planet No.6, Hebe or No.7 Iris would also be appropriate?
At least this gives some impression that can be understood by anyone. Being non-American, and never visiting the U.S. (find being fingerprinted, biometric data testing totally abhorrent -especially when they a not destroyed when you leave – but that's another matter) – anyway well perhaps you can see my point.
Regardless, thanks for the information.

]]> By: Darlington http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48648 Darlington Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:02:46 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48648 that’s the metric system … time to adjust that Drake equation ... love you’re work and you're product.. that’s the metric system … time to adjust that Drake equation … love you’re work and you're product..

]]> By: Yael Dragwyla http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48640 Yael Dragwyla Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:29:33 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48640 Salacious -- "Please define '. . . a bit larger than Los Angeles County'. Is Los Angeles all of Los Angeles or a part of it." Notice that it says in the article: "A single asteroid is thought to have broken apart within the last million years or so in each of the eight white-dwarf systems. The biggest of the bunch was once about 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter, a bit larger than Los Angeles County." The salient point is the former size of the asteroid, ~ 200 km/124 miles in diameter, and that's given. But if you insist, Los Angeles, the city, is only part of Los Angeles, the county, which is part of coastal Southern California. I highly recommend a good Rand-McNally map of the area, or one online. L.A. County itself is a little less than 125 km across. As for the broken-up asteroids around *observed* white dwarves, the evidence is part of the observations. More, the dust and bits of rock that are seen must have come from far larger conglomerates, i.e., asteroids or even chunks of rocky planets, because you don't get dust of that composition that hasn't once been part of a rocky conglomerate. This is known from geochemistry. Salacious — "Please define '. . . a bit larger than Los Angeles County'. Is Los Angeles all of Los Angeles or a part of it." Notice that it says in the article: "A single asteroid is thought to have broken apart within the last million years or so in each of the eight white-dwarf systems. The biggest of the bunch was once about 200 kilometers (124 miles) in diameter, a bit larger than Los Angeles County." The salient point is the former size of the asteroid, ~ 200 km/124 miles in diameter, and that's given. But if you insist, Los Angeles, the city, is only part of Los Angeles, the county, which is part of coastal Southern California. I highly recommend a good Rand-McNally map of the area, or one online. L.A. County itself is a little less than 125 km across. As for the broken-up asteroids around *observed* white dwarves, the evidence is part of the observations. More, the dust and bits of rock that are seen must have come from far larger conglomerates, i.e., asteroids or even chunks of rocky planets, because you don't get dust of that composition that hasn't once been part of a rocky conglomerate. This is known from geochemistry.

]]> By: Salacious B. Crumb http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48603 Salacious B. Crumb Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:56:14 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48603 Please define "....a bit larger than Los Angeles County". Is Los Angeles County all of Los Angeles or a part of it. For the rest of us insignificant non-U.S. readers. Also the statement; "Jura said only 1% of white dwarfs observed have broken up asteroids in their vicinity." Based on what evidence? Surely this is an assumption and speculation, with little observational evidence to support it? We don't know very much of the composition of material around normal stars, so how can we discuss the outcomes at the end of a star's without knowing the accretion process. Also GD 40 is also one white dwarf out of billions and billions of them. Please define "….a bit larger than Los Angeles County". Is Los Angeles County all of Los Angeles or a part of it. For the rest of us insignificant non-U.S. readers.
Also the statement;
"Jura said only 1% of white dwarfs observed have broken up asteroids in their vicinity."
Based on what evidence? Surely this is an assumption and speculation, with little observational evidence to support it? We don't know very much of the composition of material around normal stars, so how can we discuss the outcomes at the end of a star's without knowing the accretion process.
Also GD 40 is also one white dwarf out of billions and billions of them.

]]> By: maudyfish http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48577 maudyfish Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:12:46 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48577 So, it sounds as if the data is not in yet. And how exactly can they tell us if it was a system that was incinerated by and expanding star at its final demise. And that all that was left from the explosion was debris that looked like asteroids. So, it sounds as if the data is not in yet. And how exactly can they tell us if it was a system that was incinerated by and expanding star at its final demise. And that all that was left from the explosion was debris that looked like asteroids.

]]> By: Olaf http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/05/broken-up-asteroids-found-orbiting-white-dwarfs/comment-page-1/#comment-48568 Olaf Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:19:04 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=23125#comment-48568 It is probably full of life out there too. It is probably full of life out there too.

]]>