5 ms·
To be fair, if you're not going to Google it, you're probably more of a popular media reader anyway. There are no pictures in the paper to look at. https://arx
by linkdink 4y ago
To be fair, if you're not going to Google it, you're probably more of a popular media reader anyway. There are no pictures in the paper to look at.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07224 https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07224
- yuan43 4y agoDid google and didn't find it. Maybe my Google fu just isn't as advanced as yours. Then again, why not just include the link? It turns out the key here is to use "Abraham" not "Avi" in the search. The latter returns crapola and the former yields your link a few hits down. Don't worry about lack of pictures (there actually are some figures), I'm pretty good at this English thing. Turns out the object was quite small: > Given the impact speed of the meteor, ∼ 44.8 km s−1, and the total impact energy, 4.6 × 1018 ergs, the meteor mass was approximately 4.6 × 105 g. Assuming bulk density values of 1.7 g/cm3 and 0.9 g/cm3 for Type II and Type IIIa objects respectively, we obtain a radius, R, of 0.4m – 0.5m for a spherical geometry (Ceplecha 1988; Palotai et al. 2018). The small size of the object was something the article didn't address.