Potentially Dangerous Asteroid Is Actually a Pile of Rubble. Is this associated with a EM field?

There have been many discussions about EU theory.

Is this find possibly proof that there are "fields" surrounding some celestial objects out there in the cosmos.

If so can any explain how these rubble piles formed from beginning?

The centripetal force the asteroid experiences — the same force that causes the arms of a spinning ice skater to drift outward — should fling its regolith away.

What keeps the regolith intact?

Also where does regolith come from? Is it floating matter in the cosmos that collects in space?

An asteroid on NASA's list of potential impact threats to the Earth is actually a pile of loosely connected rubble held together by forces weaker than the weight of a penny, scientists say.

Unexpectedly, the scientists found 1950 DA is a porous rubble pile, about half of which is empty space. They also discovered that this loose collection of rocks is spinning faster than the forces of gravity or friction would allow it to remain in one piece, which suggests mysterious forces are helping this clump of debris to stick together.

Mystery forces?
www.space.com...

Cohesion (n. lat. cohaerere "stick or stay together") or cohesive attraction or cohesive force is the action or property of molecules sticking together, being mutually attractive. It is an intrinsic property of a substance that is caused by the shape and structure of its molecules, which makes the distribution of orbiting electrons irregular when molecules get close to one another, creating electrical attraction that can maintain a microscopic structure such as a water drop. In other words, cohesion allows for surface tension, creating a "solid-like" state upon which light (in weight) or low-density materials can be placed.

en.wikipedia.org...(chemistry)

Also if someone can explain the electrical attraction associated with the Cohesion process it would be appreciated...


This OP is not to degrade any existing theories for or against the EU theory. Found it odd that the forces holding the asteroid together are forces weaker than the weight of a penny...

All input is welcome

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

What About Dark Matter Theory? Here is my take on it.

Matter is what can be seen.
Dark Matter cannot be seen.

Matter has a pull in effect.
Dark Matter would have a repel out effect.

So no matter how big, light, loose, the object in question is, the Matter will have Dark Matter equally expelling its repelling force on its surface. I hope that makes sense.

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
I hope that makes sense.

It does and thank you SirKonstantin, 1 hadn't considered a matter contracting & dark matter repelling theory. Which would keep things intact out there if not on the planet here as well.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Well i just considered that all matter has a gravity or pulling inward force, no mater how weak it is.
So if Dark Matter, Anti Matter, The-Lack-of-Matter would have a repelling force no matter how weak or strong as well.

I would think to consider that the forces are almost equal. now to know which is greater takes a scientific experiment.

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
now to know which is greater takes a scientific experiment.

Logic. As I pondered your post I was thinking perhaps the force of matter is stronger within celestial bodies that can remain intact and those celestial objects like nebula within dark matter "voids" may have more dark matter influences hence not completely pulled together but allowing for celestial objects within them to form perhaps in smaller areas in lack of dark matter. A black hole may be close to mid range between the two as its not a total solid compiled object and has repelling attributes as well...

I'd like to know how did they come to the conclusion that this asteroid is a fluffy rubble pile. Unfortunately, their science paper is behind a paywall.

According to Wikipedia, 1950 DA is believed to be fairly dense and likely composed of nickel–iron. en.wikipedia.org...

I tend to take Space.com articles with a grain of salt, anyway. They have been known to post sensationalising and unreliable material in the past.

P.S. Another article says it was actually established that the asteroid keeps together due to a cohesive force called
the van der Waals force: tntoday.utk.edu...

So, is the mystery solved?

originally posted by: wildespace

So, is the mystery solved?

Possibly wildespace. "we" (dont ask) were waiting for you to come share your Cosmic knowledge thanks

In physical chemistry, the van der Waals force (or van der Waals' interaction), named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds or the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another or with neutral molecules or charged molecules.[1] The term includes:

Geckos can stick to walls and ceilings because of Van der Waals forces; see the

I thought the centripetal force is a pulling force inward to the centre of an object in orbit around and under, well in this case, the Sun's gravity.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
If so can any explain how these rubble piles formed from beginning?

In general it's believed, that asteroids, that are not remains of collisions of any type are small bodies (planetesimals) that formed out of the proto-planetary disc, like planets and moons.

Of course, these types of asteroids are special cases but i think their formation was like any others. The special thing about such types is what you brought up: the rubble-pile-structure.

What keeps the regolith intact?

Well, that's the question. The science team, that is behind this article suggested, that there must be some additional force responsible for binding the material, the object exists of, together.

The "Mystery forces" here are most probably some kind of cohesion (as you already quoted by yourself). Some sort of van der Waals force might be responsible to create enough cohesion to prevent the asteroid from loosing its structure and to stick its material together.

"We found a low-density rubble pile that traditionally would be unable to hold itself together unless cohesive forces were present," Rozitis said. "It's exciting because we've provided the first evidence that cohesive forces are important for small asteroids, which had only been predicted up until now."

The real question here is: If cohesion is responsible for the effect, is it possible, that the cohesive force varies with the composition of the asteroid itself?

Also it leads to a better understanding of

how disks of gas and dust around newborn stars coalesce into asteroids, comets, rings, moons and planets, researchers say.

Also where does regolith come from? Is it floating matter in the cosmos that collects in space?

This question leads back to the topic itself. See above mentioned formation out of the dust around newborn stars.

Also if someone can explain the electrical attraction associated with the Cohesion process it would be appreciated...

If someone can tell this in one or two sentences i'd give him some S&F

In short its about the force between two instantaneously induced dipoles (which would be one of the three types of van der Waals forces. Due to some process two nearby molecules change their chemical polarity to become dipoles that now attract each other by electrostatic interaction.

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I like the fact you brought in the black hole. It could be actually showing us what equal massive energy could do.
And the Von der Waals thing kinda sounds close to what i was explaning.lol

originally posted by: wildespace
I'd like to know how did they come to the conclusion that this asteroid is a fluffy rubble pile. Unfortunately, their science paper is behind a paywall.

That's actually something i asked myself too, while reading the article.

Calculating the dense of an asteroid isn't that hard, though a whole lot of work and the need of very sensitive instruments but the conclusion of a "rubble-pile" structure is something different, i guess.

originally posted by: smurfy
I thought the centripetal force is a pulling force inward to the centre of an object in orbit around and under, well in this case, the Sun's gravity.

Could it be smurfy that the core of the celestial was moving through space and as it gained more centripetal force it began to pull more smaller celestial objects into its overall compound and as it neared them and as the core and exterior continued moving/spinning they began to bond with the cohesive forces mentioned...

a reply to: Tichy

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions Tichy your detailed input is appreciated

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: smurfy
I thought the centripetal force is a pulling force inward to the centre of an object in orbit around and under, well in this case, the Sun's gravity.

Could it be smurfy that the core of the celestial was moving through space and as it gained more centripetal force it began to pull more smaller celestial objects into its overall compound and as it neared them and as the core and exterior continued moving/spinning they began to bond with the cohesive forces mentioned...

Well, look at the shape of it, it's pear shaped, (at least in those pictures it is) how did it get that shape? The pear tip looks to be toward the Sun, and if that is correct it should be that the Sun is doing it's gravitational business as usual. You might argue that the most dense part, the core, is the tip facing the Sun, and that any accretion is moving to the rear because of the spin, and at some point the push-pull cancels out. It might well lose or already have lost material and is in equilibrium now.

a reply to: smurfy

I think I understand sort of like a strip balloon partially liquid filled and then being spun. And as it spins the core or fluid within moves from one point, the observed tip as the accretion area falls/gathers behind during rotation.

This story has also been covered by the online version of Science magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a quite respectable source of scientific information. The details given are substantially the same as the originally cited article. Link to article, below:
news.sciencemag.org...
Invoking the van der Waals force seems highly speculative in this instance. It has been shown to apply to very small spherical particles. It has not been shown to hold for irregularly-shaped particles, such as might be found in an asteroid. I wouldn't call the mystery of why this asteroid is still intact solved.

originally posted by: Ross 54
Invoking the van der Waals force seems highly speculative in this instance. It has been shown to apply to very small spherical particles. It has not been shown to hold for irregularly-shaped particles, such as might be found in an asteroid. I wouldn't call the mystery of why this asteroid is still intact solved.

The van der Waals forces does seem like a reasonable subjective analysis as to what may be going on with this asteroid.

When processing the gecko analogy explaining how the regolith and rubble material are sticking together possibly, it came to mind what would happen if the gecko was exposed to a centripetal force, would its van der Waals potential stay the same or would its sticking ability fail?

This is why 1 asked could electromagnetism be playing a part w/ keeping the rubble material and the regolith connected from all the friction gathered why moving through the cosmos generating a EM field... Thanks for posting the video data also Ross 54, as it helped 1 to better understand the direction the asteroid is moving

NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Ross 54
Invoking the van der Waals force seems highly speculative in this instance. It has been shown to apply to very small spherical particles. It has not been shown to hold for irregularly-shaped particles, such as might be found in an asteroid. I wouldn't call the mystery of why this asteroid is still intact solved.

The van der Waals forces does seem like a reasonable subjective analysis as to what may be going on with this asteroid.

When processing the gecko analogy explaining how the regolith and rubble material are sticking together possibly, it came to mind what would happen if the gecko was exposed to a centripetal force, would its van der Waals potential stay the same or would its sticking ability fail?

This is why 1 asked could electromagnetism be playing a part w/ keeping the rubble material and the regolith connected from all the friction gathered why moving through the cosmos generating a EM field... Thanks for posting the video data also Ross 54, as it helped 1 to better understand the direction the asteroid is moving

NAMASTE*******

Yes, it's certainly possible that the van der Waals force is involved in asteroid cohesion. It's simply that there is a good deal of room for doubt.
The way that Geckos apparently use this force is via tiny hair-like tendrils on their feet, which is their turn have microscopic structures that facilitate molecular attraction.
That structures conferring molecular attraction could exist in asteroidal material is unclear. Unlike the case of the gecko, there would be no evolutionary process providing a basis for such a development. There would be no pressure to develop, perfect or maintain structures that confer a biological survival benefit.

As I understand it, the attraction between molecules in the van der Waals force is due to their internal electron structure, not to an externally developed force like electromagnetic induction.
It's interesting to realize that it was assumed until very recently that asteroid 1950 DA was of a very dense nickel-iron composition, in order to explain its cohesion, despite its very rapid rotation. Assuming the evidence for it being, instead, a loose 'rubble pile' holds up, some new explanation, probably several, would be proposed.

Could it be simply electrostatic force, the same one that makes Moon dust stick to everything?

The Moon rotates so slowly (about once a month) that there is ample time for the Sun's electrically charged plasma to confer substantial electric charges on dust particles. On an asteroid rotating in just over two hours, this may not be the case. Perhaps this is the reason that the electrostatic force was not suggested as a means of holding together a super-rotating asteroid.

Also-- Since oppositely charged objects attract each other, the effect would not be uniform across the surface, but would be concentrated near the light/dark terminator. This seems to be what is observed on the Moon. The exception to this is with equipment brought to the Moon. This can have a charge differential, relative to the Moon's surface, which is apparently what allows dust to be attracted to spacesuits, and the like.