YU55 Closer Than JPL Indicates?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mockrock

 

The Orbital Diagram is a very crude tool. As the disclaimer states:

The applet was implemented using 2-body methods, and hence should not be used for determining accurate long-term trajectories (over several years or decades) or planetary encounter circumstances.

The close approach data for 2010 XC15 shows a nominal close approach of 0.002 AU and a minimum of 0.001 AU. Since it wasn't discovered until 2005 the actual close approach distance cannot be known with certainty.
ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 11/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So we are putting our faith in a crude tool... For Yu55... Hmmmm

This doesn't sound right.. when we are told constantly to have faith is science.. But then told the orbital diagram is a crude tool.. When you want to use their data to debunk it's infallible but when others use it to expose anomalies its.. our mistake. There is always the perfect excuse..

reply to post by mockrock

I don't put my "faith" in a JAVA applet which has its own disclaimer.
If you wish to do so, be my guest. I prefer more accurate calculations which are readily available.

I am not worried in the least concerning this meteorite.

That being said, if you had to buy one gun for the apocalypse, which one would it be?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mockrock

 

I don't put my "faith" in a JAVA applet which has its own disclaimer.
If you wish to do so, be my guest. I prefer more accurate calculations which are readily available.

edit on 11/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The applet surely has the correct data entered? And it still doesn't explain the VAST anomaly on the diagram..! Yes maybe a small glitch, if what your are saying is true can we have any faith is the YU55 calculations?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mockrock

 

The Orbital Diagram is a very crude tool. As the disclaimer states:

The applet was implemented using 2-body methods, and hence should not be used for determining accurate long-term trajectories (over several years or decades) or planetary encounter circumstances.

The close approach data for 2010 XC15 shows a nominal close approach of 0.002 AU and a minimum of 0.001 AU. Since it wasn't discovered until 2005 the actual close approach distance cannot be known with certainty.
ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 11/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but I saw a quote from someone from NASA indicating that they were 100% sure that this NEO would not hit but your indicating that the distance can't be known with certainty. That's a contradiction. You can't be 100% certain without knowing 100% all known variables, including any potential outside sources.

reply to post by mockrock

As the disclaimer states, it is not accurate for long term calculations. It is also not much use for fine time scales.

For the near term, on an hour to hour basis, it's fine.

Originally posted by dtrock78
I am not worried in the least concerning this meteorite.

That being said, if you had to buy one gun for the apocalypse, which one would it be?

A Marlin .22 lever action. Reliable, a bazillion rounds of ammo made for it and it could be used for hunting and defense.

reply to post by TomServo


appreciate that you've brought numbers but...
this is turning into another Elenin ......adding full into to fire..

Kinda surprised the linked article hasn't come up in this thread.....very interesting how heavily this was handed if there is no truth to it.....

Link

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mockrock

 

As the disclaimer states, it is not accurate for long term calculations. It is also not much use for fine time scales.

For the near term, on an hour to hour basis, it's fine.

Where do you get your more accurate calculations mentioned in your previous post, how do they differ from the ones used in the OP? C'mon, Phage, this deflection is beneath you...offer something other than your reputation as a know it all and counter the OP claims with the equivalent effort. You can start by linking what you consider more accurate numbers that are "readily available". It's the least you can do.

reply to post by Daver2056
Out of everything I have read what you just stated makes SENSE! I seen this video last night you may have seen it but at 2:36 it starts talking about the asteroid card. Then a man speaks on how they will probably change the trajectory of the asteroid to hit earth.....I pray nothing happens but it looks like it's almost inevitable.

I don't know how to embed but here is the link....
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Pilot
You can start by linking what you consider more accurate numbers you claim exist. It's the least you can do.

I have done so.

This is a problem because no matter how the line would be interpolated from the negative distances to the positive distances, it would have to pass through 0.00000 indicating a collision at some point on the timeline.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Incorrect... There is a distance at time = 0. Therefore, there (0,0) point does not exist. Look closely at my chart, the y-intercept is at a slightly positive y (distance) value. Fyi, i defined the concept of the +/- distance. I knew this question would come up eventually. It is very easily explained. "Where do you put the close approach point, positive or negative?" In other words, how do you handle the closest point? Do you make it positive or negative. This decision would affect data at + / - 1 day only. So the answer is, try both and determine which one yields the most fluid data/plot.
However!!! My data removes all doubt by removing this data point for Nov 9 entirely (that is the entire premise of this thread, the close approach distance is invalid), therefore only using locations at surrounding days. Therefore, it the negatives are completely irrelevant, and are only used to indicate before/after. I could have used actual dates, but i figured a zero based time references would be easiest to read/understand.

I have done so.

reply to post by Phage


Results?
2nd

reply to post by Vasa Croe


Though your link is bad, I presume you're referring to the Alaska/soldier/treason/endoftheworld story.

My understanding is that part of the story is true (soldier/treason) and part of it was spun by Sorcha Faal into something entirely fabricated (calls and emails home to mom telling her to "prepare for the end of the world").

At least that's what I see from reading through a number of sites and articles on the story.

reply to post by TomServo


I posted the links. Here is the data.
In 10 minute increments:

2011-Nov-08 21:00 0.0023186
2011-Nov-08 21:10 0.0023000
2011-Nov-08 21:20 0.0022826
2011-Nov-08 21:30 0.0022664
2011-Nov-08 21:40 0.0022513
2011-Nov-08 21:50 0.0022375
2011-Nov-08 22:00 0.0022250
2011-Nov-08 22:10 0.0022138
2011-Nov-08 22:20 0.0022039
2011-Nov-08 22:30 0.0021953
2011-Nov-08 22:40 0.0021880
2011-Nov-08 22:50 0.0021821
2011-Nov-08 23:00 0.0021776
2011-Nov-08 23:10 0.0021744
2011-Nov-08 23:20 0.0021726
2011-Nov-08 23:30 0.0021722
2011-Nov-08 23:40 0.0021732
2011-Nov-08 23:50 0.0021756
2011-Nov-09 00:00 0.0021793
2011-Nov-09 00:10 0.0021844
2011-Nov-09 00:20 0.0021909
2011-Nov-09 00:30 0.0021987
2011-Nov-09 00:40 0.0022079
2011-Nov-09 00:50 0.0022184
2011-Nov-09 01:00 0.0022301
2011-Nov-09 01:10 0.0022432
2011-Nov-09 01:20 0.0022575
2011-Nov-09 01:30 0.0022730
2011-Nov-09 01:40 0.0022898
2011-Nov-09 01:50 0.0023077
2011-Nov-09 02:00 0.0023268

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Though your link is bad, I presume you're referring to the Alaska/soldier/treason/endoftheworld story.

My understanding is that part of the story is true (soldier/treason) and part of it was spun by Sorcha Faal into something entirely fabricated (calls and emails home to mom telling her to "prepare for the end of the world").

At least that's what I see from reading through a number of sites and articles on the story.

Yeah but have you looked into this guy ! Does he seem like a spy Wiliam Colton Millay

www.youtube.com...

Bull!

reply to post by mockrock


Yes. A very very very very very very very good one at that. Obviously.