Comet Elenin is coming!

Originally posted by Artorius

Originally posted by ngchunter
Asteroids do not have enough mass to gravitationally perturb a comet traveling that fast onto a collision course from an orbit that originally was supposed to keep it almost a quarter of an AU away

WOW You confirmed the mass of every single Asteroid in space??!!! Please tell us how you did this...i am very curious

Your sarcasm is unnecessary. The mass cutoff for asteroids is the point at which hydrostatic equilibrium is reached, which is approximately 5x10^20 kg.

reply to post by simone50m


Well I was referring to the clouds actually. Here if anything is interesting in the sky you can bet it wil be raining.

Mind you it is always raining!!

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Artorius

Originally posted by ngchunter
Asteroids do not have enough mass to gravitationally perturb a comet traveling that fast onto a collision course from an orbit that originally was supposed to keep it almost a quarter of an AU away

WOW You confirmed the mass of every single Asteroid in space??!!! Please tell us how you did this...i am very curious

Your sarcasm is unnecessary. The mass cutoff for asteroids is the point at which hydrostatic equilibrium is reached, which is approximately 5x10^20 kg.

edit on 18-3-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

neither is slandering people who use smiley faces this "mass cut off" is another ESTIMATE based upon NASA data. Have they truly calculated the size of every asteroid in space? Absolutely NOT. My point...

reply to post by ngchunter

Please use proper terminology. If you use inexact terminology in presenting a claim then you end up receiving inexact answers.

Absolutely. I find astronomy and orbital mechanics to be a blast.

I don't actually believe I was asking you for answers. You were replying to my comments. I now realise that you are devoid of any sense of humour or soul with a reply like that. Anyone who can find orbital mechanics 'a blast' has some serious life issues as far as I am concerned. Now if you were talking about winding a motorbike up to 170mph as I have in the past then I could go along with you - that is a blast, but orbital mechanics? :shk: Each to his own!

Are you seriously suggesting that a non-astronomer non-cold-hard-scientist should use cold hard astronomical terminology? I think not surely?. It may have escaped your notice but I do like a bit of feeling in this thread and if the terminology I use is not 100% so what? You probably have never been a teacher I would guess.

A collision might, but it would necessarily be a very large collision. The odds of any given random unexpected collision imparting just the right delta-V in just the right direction to put the debris remains on a collision course are incredibly low.

Maybe, just maybe, you now understand what I have been saying - that you cannot categorically state anything. There is always that very slim chance. Bit like the odds on winning the lottery then!

You take life way to seriously my friend. Lighten up a little. There is nothing worse than being too serious. Life is way too short for that.

....akin to an elephant falling out of the sky right now and hitting you on the head.

It missed me by the way, better luck next time!

Do you think you should take steps to prepare in case of an elephant fall?

No and neither have I ever said on this thread that Elenin might strike Earth and that we should prepare for same.

All I have been trying to do is to point out to those cold hard science types such as yourself that actually you are being factually inaccurate when you make statements such as "it will not change orbit", "it will not strike Earth" etc.

For all 'your' supposed scientific accuracy your terminology is inaccurate in the way it is worded as it makes no allowance for the unknown or unforeseen - however tiny and remote that possibility might be.

Heres a statement from someone in your field ngchunter....

" It's a mystery to me how comets work at all. "
- Donald Brownlee, principal investigator of NASA's Stardust mission.

LINK

Originally posted by yets777
if there is 1 thing the maya's did predict or at least they are doing it recent video's is that we will have 3 days of absolute darkness , if u look into the diagram on JPL and u forward time untill the 24,25,26 of september that is where the "comet" travels between us and the sun , depending on the size of the object that could certainly lead to a full eclipse or "black hole sun ".

The sun is about 0.5 degrees across viewed from Earth. Around the time Elenin lies in a plane with the earth and sun (it never forms a line, since Elenin will pass the sun about 2 degrees over the solar north pole), Elenin will be about 0.377939636 AU (56,539,013.7 km). An object at that distance would have to be 493,396 km in diameter to eclipse the sun, *IF* it was centered on the sun. With the actual 2 degree separation, the object would have to subtend about 2.25 degrees to eclipse the sun. That would mean a diameter of 2,220,282 km. Jupiter is only 71,492 km in diameter. So you're talking an object 7 to 31 times the size of Jupiter would be needed to eclipse the sun

In other words, no... Elenin will not be eclipsing the sun.

Originally posted by PuterMan
Science, and people such as yourself, like to deal in facts. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a fact, only a probability. You cannot categorically state that Elenin will not be affected by another celestial body during it's course towards Earth. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

Why is it so hard to understand that the Elenin orbit projections have uncertainty built in (0.3% when Elenin is closest to Earth at the moment). Anything outside that error range is so statistically improbable, it's certainly not worth worrying about and hardly worth mentioning.

reply to post by Artorius

"It's a mystery to me how comets work at all."
"I think that some process is allowing heat to get down below the surface of a comet and drive the activity from the inside out...I have no idea about the details of the process."

I would like to see the more context for his statement but he was not talking about the orbits of comets. Orbits are no mystery.

He seems to have been talking about the ejection of material from the nucleus.

Originally posted by Artorius

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Artorius

Originally posted by ngchunter
Asteroids do not have enough mass to gravitationally perturb a comet traveling that fast onto a collision course from an orbit that originally was supposed to keep it almost a quarter of an AU away

WOW You confirmed the mass of every single Asteroid in space??!!! Please tell us how you did this...i am very curious

Your sarcasm is unnecessary. The mass cutoff for asteroids is the point at which hydrostatic equilibrium is reached, which is approximately 5x10^20 kg.

edit on 18-3-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

neither is slandering people who use smiley faces

Slander is a serious accusation. Show me where I slandered you.

this "mass cut off" is another ESTIMATE based upon NASA data.

No, it's not. It's based on the criteria that an object large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium is not an asteroid but rather a dwarf planet. NASA did not make that decision either.

Have they truly calculated the size of every asteroid in space? Absolutely NOT. My point...

You don't need to. You apparently lack a sufficient understanding of what an asteroid is. The mass cutoff stands. If it's over that mass, it's not an asteroid.

Originally posted by Artorius
Heres a statement from someone in your field ngchunter....

" It's a mystery to me how comets work at all. "
- Donald Brownlee, principal investigator of NASA's Stardust mission.

LINK

edit on 18-3-2011 by Artorius because: (no reason given)

Please show me where this quote mining is at all relevant to anything I've said.

Originally posted by PuterMan
Anyone who can find orbital mechanics 'a blast' has some serious life issues as far as I am concerned.

Your bias is not surprising to me.

Are you seriously suggesting that a non-astronomer non-cold-hard-scientist should use cold hard astronomical terminology? I think not surely?.

If you want to be on the same page with those who do know the terminology, then yes. Otherwise your claims are likely to be misunderstood. Vague terminology and descriptions lead to misunderstandings. I'm just telling you how it is, whether you like that reality or not is up to you.

Maybe, just maybe, you now understand what I have been saying - that you cannot categorically state anything.

I disagree with your premise on that. If you can know something with that much certainty then you may as well state it as a fact until evidence comes to light that would disprove or challenge it. I say an elephant is not going to hit me in the head today. It goes without saying that I'm implying that notwithstanding a hand of God style fluke, no elephant will land on my head. It makes no sense that I should need to explicitly qualify every conclusion reached based on mountains of evidence with that statement. You're essentially implying that conclusions of future events should never be reached in case a hand of God moment or series of moments happen. There's no rational reason to behave that way though. Perhaps you're just behaving that way for fun, and if that's how you have fun I'm not going to be the one to judge.

All I have been trying to do is to point out to those cold hard science types such as yourself that actually you are being factually inaccurate when you make statements such as "it will not change orbit", "it will not strike Earth" etc.

Watch me be factually right when it passes by earth instead of hitting earth. It's not factually wrong to state that based on the evidence unless new evidence comes to light to show that it won't happen that way or didn't happen that way.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Artorius

 

"It's a mystery to me how comets work at all."
"I think that some process is allowing heat to get down below the surface of a comet and drive the activity from the inside out...I have no idea about the details of the process."

I would like to see the more context for his statement but he was not talking about the orbits of comets. Orbits are no mystery.

He seems to have been talking about the ejection of material from the nucleus.

edit on 3/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

He says those exact words?? "orbits are no mystery" please show me. I can not find that statement in the article..

reply to post by ngchunter


:shk: What bias?

If you want to be on the same page with those who do know the terminology

May I remind you that you are on my page, not the other way round. In addition, terminology does not make you right. I find that a very pompous statement.

I give up. Your type is beyond redemption.

Oh hold on, no it is not

finally.....

to state that based on the evidence unless new evidence comes to light to show

Now that is correct.

Watch me be factually right when it passes by earth instead of hitting earth

Only in hindsight. Until that point you are not, and cannot be, factually right.

Guess I will go ahead and post this here too.

Since I did say something about this astronomer being for real and all.

Originally posted by PuterMan
May I remind you that you are on my page, not the other way round. In addition, terminology does not make you right. I find that a very pompous statement.

I did not say terminology makes me right. I said if you want to be properly understood you need to use proper terminology. You're right about one thing; this is your thread, and it is your business if you want to be properly understood or not.

Only in hindsight. Until that point you are not, and cannot be, factually right.

No, I was always right because it was always going to pass by the earth just as I said for the reasons that I said. The event will prove me to be factually right. If I'm wrong then I'm dead anyway, just as if I was wrong in stating that an elephant will not hit me in the head today.

reply to post by ngchunter


Is there some particular reason why your tone is so overbearing towards other members?

Generally I find that rather than adopt the "I am right" attitude it is better to provide links to back up your statements.

You have provided no links at all to your statements regarding hydrostatic equilibrium/mass cutoff, yet you expect people to take your word just because you said so?

Hydrostatic equilibrium is the current distinguishing criterion between dwarf planets and other small solar system bodies

Mass cut-off between stars and brown dwarfs revealed,

Interior Structure of Stars

If you want to be on the same page as people who back up what they say, please provide links in future. It is by doing this that people learn. "Because I said so" is not sufficient.

reply to post by ngchunter

No, I was always right because it was always going to pass by the earth just as I said for the reasons that I said.

But you cannot claim that until after the event. Until such time it remains a highly probable prediction. Is there some problem with understanding that?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ngchunter

 

No, I was always right because it was always going to pass by the earth just as I said for the reasons that I said.

But you cannot claim that until after the event. Until such time it remains a highly probable prediction. Is there some problem with understanding that?

I can claim it any time I like, the only question is whether or not the evidence supports that conclusion. Again, what you're trying to argue for is not to accept any conclusion no matter how strong the evidence. That's just ridiculous.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Is there some particular reason why your tone is so overbearing towards other members?

Generally I find that rather than adopt the "I am right" attitude it is better to provide links to back up your statements.

You have provided no links at all to your statements regarding hydrostatic equilibrium/mass cutoff, yet you expect people to take your word just because you said so?

When someone's first reply to me is sarcastic, yes, I will be stern in my reply. Would you prefer that I flame the person or react sarcastically myself? The issue didn't seem to be disbelief in my statements about what criteria separates asteroids from dwarf planets so much as a lack of understanding of what that means for being able to categorize asteroids as having below a certain level of mass.

If you want to be on the same page as people who back up what they say, please provide links in future. It is by doing this that people learn. "Because I said so" is not sufficient.

If you want a link, ask for one. I'll be more than happy to supply you with one. As I said, the issue seemed to be a disconnect in understanding what that criteria means for making statements about the mass of asteroids.

reply to post by ngchunter

as a lack of understanding of what that means for being able to categorize asteroids as having below a certain level of mass.

Quite, and do you not consider therefore that the provision of links so the poster and others may go and educate themselves would be useful and go a long way towards fulfilling the motto of this site?

Unfortunately many people do not chose to go and find out for themselves (and I am not saying that this applies to your respondent as I know it does not) and the provision of links is an encouragement for them to educate themselves. That is all I am suggesting.