[higginsdj]

I think I may be wearing the patience of my professional mentors rather thin as I am continually questioning them about their premise that collisions do not play a part in accounting for slow spinning asteroids. The paradigm seems to be that infrequent large impacts spin asteroids up while frequent small collisions slow the spin down such that an equilibrium exists.

This does not seem logical to me. I'm great with logic but not with science and I realise the natural world does not abide by logic so does anyone care to shed some light on this for me?

Cheers