Asteriod strike?
-
Steve Mayfield wrote:
currently a 1 in 75 chance it may hit Mars on January 30
Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd? These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
Ilíon wrote:
These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
Yeah, we're all thinking that they're not as great as you are. That's simply an inevitable consequence of them not being you. So, they and everyone not as simply amazing as you are has to settle on a degree of uncertainty not present in your uniquely infallible super-science. Because of course, you are the one true scientist.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
The story says that the odds are supposed to go down (not a good thing for the martians) as time goes on. I suspect that as the astriod and mars move and they get more data about tragetory and that sort of thing they can get thier math more correct. Its calculas and the more data you throw into the function the better the answer. They have probably run all the probably numbers to even get the odds right so the 1 in 75 is probably best case for mars (again viewing it from teh martians perspective).
the odds are supposed to go down the wording is misleading...in the main text, it says the odds should diminish again early next month after getting new observations of the asteroid's orbit which means that the odds of a strike will probably become less likely...but still, the possibility of observing an asteroid strike in real time would be amazing...especially with all of the probes currently on and near Mars. I would expect that if the odds become more likely, even the Hubble would get involved.
Steve
-
Steve Mayfield wrote:
currently a 1 in 75 chance it may hit Mars on January 30
Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd? These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
Ilíon wrote:
Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd?
No. Most likely there isn't enough data right now to know the asteroid's exact mass, trajectory, etc... All those have to be known to accurately predict it's path and gravitational interaction with other bodies. The asteroids are discovered by looking at a series of CCD images and looking for the "stars" that appear to move. It takes alot of data to accurately find their position and trajectory.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd?
No. Most likely there isn't enough data right now to know the asteroid's exact mass, trajectory, etc... All those have to be known to accurately predict it's path and gravitational interaction with other bodies. The asteroids are discovered by looking at a series of CCD images and looking for the "stars" that appear to move. It takes alot of data to accurately find their position and trajectory.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that someone that claims to be so well versed in "logic", could have such a hard time deducing this information? :-D
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that someone that claims to be so well versed in "logic", could have such a hard time deducing this information? :-D
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Yeah it was kind of funny. He obviously doesn't have the slightest clue about astronomy.
Happy birthday baby Jesus! Please don't burn us all in hell forever.
-
currently a 1 in 75 chance it may hit Mars on January 30 [^] the opportunity to observe an asteroid strike is both exciting and frightening at the same time.
Steve
Those Asteriods are buggers, like their near cousins the Asteroids the come crashing in and killing everything and getting all rowdy. We need to send up ships with massive lasers,to shoot them into smaller, more managable pieces. Hey doesn't that sound like a great idea for a game?
------------------------------------ I try to appear cooler, by calling him Euler.
-
Ilíon wrote:
These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
Yeah, we're all thinking that they're not as great as you are. That's simply an inevitable consequence of them not being you. So, they and everyone not as simply amazing as you are has to settle on a degree of uncertainty not present in your uniquely infallible super-science. Because of course, you are the one true scientist.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
The story says that the odds are supposed to go down (not a good thing for the martians) as time goes on. I suspect that as the astriod and mars move and they get more data about tragetory and that sort of thing they can get thier math more correct. Its calculas and the more data you throw into the function the better the answer. They have probably run all the probably numbers to even get the odds right so the 1 in 75 is probably best case for mars (again viewing it from teh martians perspective).
Tad McClellan wrote:
The story says that the odds are supposed to go down (not a good thing for the martians) as time goes on. I suspect that as the astriod and mars move and they get more data about tragetory and that sort of thing they can get thier math more correct. Its calculas and the more data you throw into the function the better the answer. They have probably run all the probably numbers to even get the odds right so the 1 in 75 is probably best case for mars (again viewing it from teh martians perspective).
Think about this, will you? How can they not already know the trajectory? The asteroid wasn't discovered just today, it was discovered a month ago -- they know where it was a month ago and they know where it is today. These things don't weave and bob, there are no cross-winds to deflect the trajectory; at most, the gravity of Mars will affect the asteroid's trajectory (when it gets close to the planet) -- and, supposedly, Mars' mass and gravity is well understood.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 7:34:09 AM
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
blather, blather, blather
Sonny Boy (like I really believe you're 14), I'm not the one who believes that "Science" == TrVth.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
blather, blather, blather
Sonny Boy (like I really believe you're 14), I'm not the one who believes that "Science" == TrVth.
Ilíon wrote:
Sonny Boy (like I really believe you're 14)
No, because that would mean that I'm smarter than you are, and that couldn't be, could it? And I'm thirteen, by the way. Idiot.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm not the one who believes that "Science" == TrVth.
No, you believe that whatever you say is truth. I believe that science is working towards truth, and that even though it may not always be right, it constantly readjusts itself whenever truths are found. It's not as dull and stubborn as you are.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Science isn't truth, it's the search for the best explination currently possible. Anything more to be said on the matter however is defiantly soapbox material.
originSH wrote:
Science isn't truth ...
Exactly. Science, the real thing, isn't about truth.
originSH wrote:
... it's the search for the best explination currently possible.
Which is but another way of saying that no scientific statement can *ever* honestly be claimed to be true ... not on the basis of science, at any rate. A scientific statement *may* be true (or it may well not be). But you can never use science to determine the truth-status of any scientific statement.
-
originSH wrote:
Science isn't truth ...
Exactly. Science, the real thing, isn't about truth.
originSH wrote:
... it's the search for the best explination currently possible.
Which is but another way of saying that no scientific statement can *ever* honestly be claimed to be true ... not on the basis of science, at any rate. A scientific statement *may* be true (or it may well not be). But you can never use science to determine the truth-status of any scientific statement.
Ilíon wrote:
Exactly. Science, the real thing, isn't about truth.
Actually, it IS about truth, you pinhead. It is the pursuit of truth, rather than actually BEING truth.
Ilíon wrote:
Which is but another way of saying that no scientific statement can *ever* honestly be claimed to be true ... not on the basis of science, at any rate.
It can be claimed true insofar as it hasn't ever been proven false. As soon as it is proven false, it is rejected as truth. I'd like to hear your methods, though.
Ilíon wrote:
But you can never use science to determine the truth-status of any scientific statement.
No, we all need to ask you, because you know everything. You don't need to prove anything to anyone, because anyone that shows you evidence to the contrary and tells you that you've wasted your life pursuing idiocy you brand an ignorant twit.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Ilíon wrote:
Sonny Boy (like I really believe you're 14)
No, because that would mean that I'm smarter than you are, and that couldn't be, could it? And I'm thirteen, by the way. Idiot.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm not the one who believes that "Science" == TrVth.
No, you believe that whatever you say is truth. I believe that science is working towards truth, and that even though it may not always be right, it constantly readjusts itself whenever truths are found. It's not as dull and stubborn as you are.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, you believe that whatever you say is truth.
Idiot, yourself. Unlike so many of you people around here, I don't say things that I don't: 1) believe to be true, 2) have good reason to believe to be true.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I believe that science is working towards truth, and that even though it may not always be right, it constantly readjusts itself whenever truths are found.
'Science' is not truth -- or, to phrase that better, scientific statements are of indeterminate truth-status. Science isn't even *about* truth. Therefore, 'science' cannot be "working towards truth." Nor can 'science' ever "constantly readjust[] itself whenever truths are found." 'Science' cannot differentiate truth from non-truth; 'science' cannot know when a truth has been found.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, you believe that whatever you say is truth.
Idiot, yourself. Unlike so many of you people around here, I don't say things that I don't: 1) believe to be true, 2) have good reason to believe to be true.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I believe that science is working towards truth, and that even though it may not always be right, it constantly readjusts itself whenever truths are found.
'Science' is not truth -- or, to phrase that better, scientific statements are of indeterminate truth-status. Science isn't even *about* truth. Therefore, 'science' cannot be "working towards truth." Nor can 'science' ever "constantly readjust[] itself whenever truths are found." 'Science' cannot differentiate truth from non-truth; 'science' cannot know when a truth has been found.
Ilíon wrote:
Idiot, yourself.
At least your comebacks are good. :doh:
Ilíon wrote:
Unlike so many of you people around here, I don't say things that I don't: 1) believe to be true, 2) have good reason to believe to be true.
Well, if you have good reason to believe these things to be true, do tell us, because you certainly haven't been doing so. I suspect, though, that you don't, and your belief simply stems from an unshakeable faith in your own superiority.
Ilíon wrote:
'Science' is not truth -- or, to phrase that better, scientific statements are of indeterminate truth-status.
Perhaps you didn't read my post where I said that. Or maybe you did, and are just stealing my thoughts. Maybe you should read this[^].
Ilíon wrote:
Science isn't even *about* truth.
See, again with the unjustified assertions. Even if you were right, which you're not, you NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. Your whole argument is based on something that can easily be proven false. I'm not going to bother, though, because you're obviously too stupid to be worth the effort.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Ilíon wrote:
Exactly. Science, the real thing, isn't about truth.
Actually, it IS about truth, you pinhead. It is the pursuit of truth, rather than actually BEING truth.
Ilíon wrote:
Which is but another way of saying that no scientific statement can *ever* honestly be claimed to be true ... not on the basis of science, at any rate.
It can be claimed true insofar as it hasn't ever been proven false. As soon as it is proven false, it is rejected as truth. I'd like to hear your methods, though.
Ilíon wrote:
But you can never use science to determine the truth-status of any scientific statement.
No, we all need to ask you, because you know everything. You don't need to prove anything to anyone, because anyone that shows you evidence to the contrary and tells you that you've wasted your life pursuing idiocy you brand an ignorant twit.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Actually, it IS about truth, you pinhead. It is the pursuit of truth, rather than actually BEING truth. ... It can be claimed true insofar as it hasn't ever been proven false. As soon as it is proven false, it is rejected as truth. I'd like to hear your methods, though.
Talk about pinheads! What you're talking about here has nothing to do with truth ... this is called (in part) Positivism (there are other things going on in those statements). It's a bankrupt and discredited philosophy. Right here, right now, you've acknowledged that this "science" thingie you're worshipping isn't about truth, and you are completely unable or unwilling to see this.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, we all need to ask you, because you know everything. You don't need to prove anything to anyone, because anyone that shows you evidence to the contrary and tells you that you've wasted your life pursuing idiocy you brand an ignorant twit.
L'il Pinhead: 1) You haven't *shown* anything to be contrary to any statement I've even made; what you've done it wail: "That ain't true cuz I don't wanna believe it! 2) You initiated the branding; you get what you ask for.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Actually, it IS about truth, you pinhead. It is the pursuit of truth, rather than actually BEING truth. ... It can be claimed true insofar as it hasn't ever been proven false. As soon as it is proven false, it is rejected as truth. I'd like to hear your methods, though.
Talk about pinheads! What you're talking about here has nothing to do with truth ... this is called (in part) Positivism (there are other things going on in those statements). It's a bankrupt and discredited philosophy. Right here, right now, you've acknowledged that this "science" thingie you're worshipping isn't about truth, and you are completely unable or unwilling to see this.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, we all need to ask you, because you know everything. You don't need to prove anything to anyone, because anyone that shows you evidence to the contrary and tells you that you've wasted your life pursuing idiocy you brand an ignorant twit.
L'il Pinhead: 1) You haven't *shown* anything to be contrary to any statement I've even made; what you've done it wail: "That ain't true cuz I don't wanna believe it! 2) You initiated the branding; you get what you ask for.
I could argue against everything you said there, but I don't want to distract you from this: You claim that I worship science. What do you worship instead?
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Tad McClellan wrote:
The story says that the odds are supposed to go down (not a good thing for the martians) as time goes on. I suspect that as the astriod and mars move and they get more data about tragetory and that sort of thing they can get thier math more correct. Its calculas and the more data you throw into the function the better the answer. They have probably run all the probably numbers to even get the odds right so the 1 in 75 is probably best case for mars (again viewing it from teh martians perspective).
Think about this, will you? How can they not already know the trajectory? The asteroid wasn't discovered just today, it was discovered a month ago -- they know where it was a month ago and they know where it is today. These things don't weave and bob, there are no cross-winds to deflect the trajectory; at most, the gravity of Mars will affect the asteroid's trajectory (when it gets close to the planet) -- and, supposedly, Mars' mass and gravity is well understood.
modified on Friday, December 21, 2007 7:34:09 AM
Ilíon wrote:
at most, the gravity of Mars will affect the asteroid's trajectory
Really? You don't think the sun or Jupiter will have an effect? You don't think there is a margin of error in estimating the trajectory of an object so small that happens to be moving at high velocity millions of miles away. Also, I'm pretty sure the only estimate for the size of an asteroid at that distance is it's visual magnitude which depends on the color and reflectivity of the asteroid material adding even more uncertainty. So, no given the scale of the objects and the scale of the solar system, no it doesn't seem odd to me at all.
This blanket smells like ham
-
Ilíon wrote:
at most, the gravity of Mars will affect the asteroid's trajectory
Really? You don't think the sun or Jupiter will have an effect? You don't think there is a margin of error in estimating the trajectory of an object so small that happens to be moving at high velocity millions of miles away. Also, I'm pretty sure the only estimate for the size of an asteroid at that distance is it's visual magnitude which depends on the color and reflectivity of the asteroid material adding even more uncertainty. So, no given the scale of the objects and the scale of the solar system, no it doesn't seem odd to me at all.
This blanket smells like ham
This is Troy D. Hailey we're talking about. He doesn't think.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Steve Mayfield wrote:
currently a 1 in 75 chance it may hit Mars on January 30
Doesn't this strike anyone else as odd? These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
Ilíon wrote:
These 'scientists' know where Mars is (and where it will be); they know where the asteroid is (and where it will be); yet that can't say for certain that the asteroid will or will not strike the planet.
hmmm.... have you ever tried to calculate the exact position of a single vehicle using only one vantage point? Although you can extract multiple triangulation points through time as the vantage point and the object moves, it assumes you know precisely where you are down the last nanometer because every variation and error associated with the source observer position exponentially effects the calculated position of the object. we reduce error over time and repeated calculations, but can never remove it.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Those Asteriods are buggers, like their near cousins the Asteroids the come crashing in and killing everything and getting all rowdy. We need to send up ships with massive lasers,to shoot them into smaller, more managable pieces. Hey doesn't that sound like a great idea for a game?
------------------------------------ I try to appear cooler, by calling him Euler.
Dalek Dave wrote:
We need to send up ships with massive lasers,to shoot them into smaller, more managable pieces.
but what if aliens in flying saucers tried to prevent us by shooting at us. Hey, we could put that in too! and make the aliens faster and move erratically in higher levels.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)