The Asteroid 2007 WD5 will not impact Mars.

[eanassir]

Sure I will, anytime, but you need to understand what proof means.

A friend has posted to me this link and I derived these few lines about their investigations of the contents of the Deep Impact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/science/07comet.html ​

1. Spitzer detected specific colors of infrared light that indicated that Tempel 1 contained clays and carbonates, the minerals of limestone and seashells.

Clays and carbonates both require liquid water to form.
"How do clays and carbonates form in frozen comets where there isn't liquid water?" said Carey M. Lisse, a research scientist at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University who is presenting the Spitzer data today at a meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences in Cambridge, England. "Nobody expected this."​

2. Spitzer also detected minerals known as crystalline silicates. Astronomers had already known that comets contain silicates, but silicates line up in neat crystal structures only when they are warmed to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit - temperatures reached at around the orbit of Mercury - and then cooled.

"How do you do that and then how do you put that stuff into a comet that forms out by Pluto?" Dr. Lisse said.​

3. Observations of the Deep Impact collision confirmed that the comet is mostly empty space. The outer layers of Tempel 1 are "unbelievably fragile, less strong than a snow bank," said Michael A'Hearn, the mission's principal investigator, during a telephone news conference yesterday.

"There is no indication we got down to any solid ice."
The comet, about five miles long and three miles wide, is fluffy and porous, with about 75 percent of it just empty space, Dr. A'Hearn said.
"The ice is all in the form of tiny grains" from 0.00004 to 0.004 inches in diameter, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/science/07comet.html​

Note: I wrote to the Canadian Astronomer about the objects circling around the earth, and in case he replies, I shall - by God's will - inform you whether it is to my side or to your side.​

eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Don't count on a newspaper report to get the science right. Clay is not a mineral, it's an assemblage of minerals, and it's not a component of limestones and seashells. Besides, even if comets do contain clays and carbonates, that in no way supports any of your claims about comets. Quite the contrary in fact; you claim comets are very hot balls of fire. You know what happens to mixtures of clays and carbonates at high temperatures? You get ceramics.

 

[eanassir]

Don't count on a newspaper report to get the science right.

The artificial satellites that rotate around the earth have been put at certain speed by a rocket, and they continued to rotate in a rapid speed.( and this will be different from a natural satellite)

There are at least six asteroids, as do they call them, which are near to the earth.

Here are my questions (in black) and the answers of the Canadian Astronomer Professor Paul Weingert (in blue):

​

• eanassir wrote:

Dear Prof. Paul Wiegert
Good evening
I think the strange orbit of both asteroid 3753 Cruithne and Asteroid
2002 AA29 may be because they are not regularly or symmetrically
spherical; or because their shapes are irregular.

Would you please tell me:
Are there some large number of rocks meteoritic) that circle around
the earth?
Currently there are no rocks (except the Moon) which circle the Earth
very closely. Some asteroids (about 6 known, like 3753 and 2002AA29)
travel temporarily around the Earth at very large distance (far beyond
the Moon)

I thought that there are thousands of such rocks that orbit around the
earth.

Do they circle around the earth from right to left in the same
direction of the rotation of the earth itself around its axis?
The Moon circles around counterclockwise when seen from high above the
Earth's north pole. The other asteroids like 3753 usually rotate around
clockwise.

Do such rocks circle around the earth in less than 24 hours duration
or longer?
None of these rocks can circle the Earth that quickly. The Moon does it
in a month, the others all take about a year. Any rocks which were close
enough to orbit the Earth that fast (24 hours) would have already been
seen (its a curious fact that anything orbiting the Earth will orbit
faster if it is closer, regardless of its mass, shape, etc)

paul
---------------------------------------------------------------
2. eanassir said:

But I thought or read that there are clouds or swarms of some small rocks at some distance,
and they may circle around the earth in the same direction as the rotation of the earth around itself,
and that such meteoritic rocks may constitute some danger to the artificial satellites and the probes that go to the outer space.
Is this right or not?


Professor Weingert said:
Hi eanassir. There aren't any clouds or swarms of small particles that
circle the Earth particularly. There are swarms of small particles that
orbit the Sun (and they go around the Sun in the same direction as the
Earth goes around the Sun). Earth occasionally passes through such
swarms (and meteor showers are visible from Earth when this happens, as
the small rocks burn up in our atmosphere). But these swarms don't
specfically orbit the Earth, but rather the Sun.

paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. eanassir said:
Suppose there is some meteoritic rock orbiting the Earth, (and the Earth itself –as we know – rotates around itself in 24 hours); then is it possible for such a natural object to orbit the earth in less than 24 hours? Or will it take more than 24 hours to complete its orbit around the Earth?

Professor Weingert said:
Hello eanassir. Yes, in fact it is possible for objects to orbit the
Earth in less than 24 hours. Most artificial satellites do, for example.
Generally, the closer the object orbits to the Earth, the more quickly
it goes around. Objects quite close to the Earth (for example the
international space station) orbit the Earth in 90 minutes. A rock on a
similar orbit would take the same amount of time. 90 minutes is about
the quickest one can go around the Earth though, before one gets so
close that the atmosphere interferes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. eanassir said:
But were such artificial satellites that rotate in 90 minutes or about that; were they put in their orbit with an initial speed by a rocket and that have led to their rotation in such speed, or is the matter spontaneous that any rock with initial speed of zero will go on in such speed of about 90 minutes.

Professor Weingert said:
hello eanassir. Yes, the objects orbit at that speed because they were
put onto their orbit by a rocket. If they were simply put in space with
no speed, they would simply fall to Earth. So the objects must be given
their speed in some way.​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Did you notice that he confirmed everything I said?

 

[eanassir]

Did you notice that he confirmed everything I said?

I gave exactly what I said and what he said; because I promised you.
But I think you said no difference between natural and artificial satellite. but these satellites rotate because of initial speed when they were put in their orbit by a rocket.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Don't you think that means any natural satellite at the same altitude would have to orbit at the same speed? Just because there isn't one there doesn't mean there can't be. There is no difference between the orbital parameters of natural and artificial satellites, they depend only on the masses of the bodies involved and the distance between them, the rotation period doesn't enter into it. Since you don't seem inclined to answer my question, I'll answer it for you: yes, he did confirm what I told you. You didn't ask him the question at issue, which was, is it possible for a natural satellite to orbit another body faster than the body itself rotates? The answer to that is yes as well, I even gave you several examples, and if you can't see that it's directly implied by what he told he, you're never going to get it. Anything orbiting the earth at an altitude of less than about 36,000 kilometers will orbit faster than the planet rotates, or it can't stay in orbit.

 

[eanassir]

Thirty Years of Cults and Comets
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
sott.net
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:02 EST
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/14


©UnknownComet of 1532 This morning I was thumbing through a newly arrived book: Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, published by the eminent scientific publishing house, Springer, edited by Peter T. Bobrowsky and Hans Rickman.

Could it be a comet or a fragment of a comet ?​

"Despite witness accounts that a meteor that streaked across the Pacific Northwest skies this week struck the Earth, scientists at the University of Washington say it likely disintegrated in the sky."
"Some witnesses reported seeing Tuesday's meteor hit the ground southwest of Ritzville in central Washington, sending local officials on a fruitless hunt for the crater." ….​

"People in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and British Columbia reported seeing a bright fireball streaking across the sky about 5:30 a.m. Tuesday."​

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/wire/sns-ap-meteor-sighting,1,84423.story?ctrack=2&cset=true​

eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com​

 

[eanassir]

Repeated reply.

 

[eanassir]

Thirty Years of Cults and Comets
Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Or most probably it is related to the spy satellite; becuase it is near in time to their shooting it!
I do not know the unknown or the forefuture; I thought it is most probably a comet or a fragment of comet; but now I think it is most probably related to their spy satellite.