Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. We're all doomed

We're all doomed

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
comquestionannouncement
9 Posts 9 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    John Honan
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

    V B V I N 6 Replies Last reply
    0
    • J John Honan

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

      V Offline
      V Offline
      Vikram A Punathambekar
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      John Honan wrote: Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? Both, IMO. Vikram.


      Which is worse- ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care! KI klike KDE kand kuse kit, kbut KI kmust kadmit, kstarting kall knames kwith K kis ksilly. KI khope kthey kwill kgive kup kthis kwhole kscheme ksoon kand kcome kup kwith kreal knames. pI vThink aHungarian nNotation vIs iA aWonderful nThing cAnd pEveryone avShould vUse pIt aAll dThe nTime, adNo nMatter pWhat dThe nContext, adEven adWhen vSpeaking.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • J John Honan

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

        B Offline
        B Offline
        Brit
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        A while ago, a astrophysicist said that if an asteriod were definately going to hit the earth and destroy all life that he would not tell anyone. It was better to let people live out their days in ignorant bliss. So, they they tell us that the asteriod isn't going to hit, you know what that really means. ;) ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show

        J 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J John Honan

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

          V Offline
          V Offline
          Vivek Rajan
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          The Torino scale is intriguing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] I thought the worst case scenario (Level 10) was one where a huge asteroid hits the earth and causes "major structural damage" and destroying all lifeforms. The Torino scale stops at "a global climatic change" such as the one which destroyed the dinosaurs. However in that case, a lot of other lifeforms survived because the earth still retained its orbit and overall structure. Is it possible that an impact would break the earth and perhaps move the earth closer to venus or near the meteor belt enroute to mars ? This is what countless video games and movies have been telling us. How can they be wrong ?

          C 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J John Honan

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

            I Offline
            I Offline
            Ivor S Sargoytchev
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            1 to 909,000 - that's nothing! Here are some better odds: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm Ivor S. Sargoytchev

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B Brit

              A while ago, a astrophysicist said that if an asteriod were definately going to hit the earth and destroy all life that he would not tell anyone. It was better to let people live out their days in ignorant bliss. So, they they tell us that the asteriod isn't going to hit, you know what that really means. ;) ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show

              J Offline
              J Offline
              JoeSox
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              Brit wrote: It was better to let people live out their days in ignorant bliss. So, they they tell us that the asteriod isn't going to hit, you know what that really means :omg::omg::eek::omg::omg: Later,
              JoeSox
              www.humanaiproject.org my friend's Hawaiian Art : http://www.cafeshops.com/coolroxart

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J John Honan

                http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

                N Offline
                N Offline
                Navin
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                John Honan wrote: "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." The chances are likely. Hmm, so what are the chances that the chances will be unlikely? :-D "When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." - Albert Einstein

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J John Honan

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] Okay, they've 'downplayed' the risk of it hitting us. But what I can't work out is this bit; "The chances of a catastrophe are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements of the asteroid's orbit have been made." How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? - Surely they mean the probability calculation will more accurate. Or are they just trying to stop mass panic? :laugh: John[^]

                  R Offline
                  R Offline
                  Russell Morris
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  John Honan wrote: How can the 'chances be slimmer' just cause they have more accurate calculations? I would assume that they have worked out rough calculations with upper/lower bounds for accuracy. Obviously, the lower bound (the highest chance of collision) is the one being reported on by the news... :). -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • V Vivek Rajan

                    The Torino scale is intriguing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3200019.stm[^] I thought the worst case scenario (Level 10) was one where a huge asteroid hits the earth and causes "major structural damage" and destroying all lifeforms. The Torino scale stops at "a global climatic change" such as the one which destroyed the dinosaurs. However in that case, a lot of other lifeforms survived because the earth still retained its orbit and overall structure. Is it possible that an impact would break the earth and perhaps move the earth closer to venus or near the meteor belt enroute to mars ? This is what countless video games and movies have been telling us. How can they be wrong ?

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    ColinDavies
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    Vivek Rajan wrote: Is it possible that an impact would break the earth and perhaps move the earth closer to venus or near the meteor belt enroute to mars ? The earth is 99.99% liquid matter, so it is more likely to form blobs under impact then to break or shatter like a twisted apple. Almost any force will alter the earths orbit and rotation and tilt, but it all matters to the degree. To shift earth as far as Venus would require the right angular momentum. Interestingly enough, the moon helps to stabilize the earths orbit, and we are almost in a twin planetary system with it. Regardz Colin J Davies

                    *** WARNING *
                    This could be addictive
                    **The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "

                    It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    Reply
                    • Reply as topic
                    Log in to reply
                    • Oldest to Newest
                    • Newest to Oldest
                    • Most Votes


                    • Login

                    • Don't have an account? Register

                    • Login or register to search.
                    • First post
                      Last post
                    0
                    • Categories
                    • Recent
                    • Tags
                    • Popular
                    • World
                    • Users
                    • Groups