posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by rickymouse
Now, this is by no means, NO MEANS my strong suit, but I am pretty sure that very reliable mathematical analysis can be performed and run, using data
sets assembled from a combination of old data, and new learning, to establish at least a good estimate of what is out there.
It is of course impossible for scientists to count every bit of rock bigger than a fridge freezer, because we just do not have enough eyes in the
sky. But they can, and do perform feats of mathematical brilliance, which are at the very least good enough to base future missions and initiatives
on, ones which may shed better light on this subject, and many many others.
I think you ought to look into probabilistic analysis, which is a field which may pertain to the sort of work required, in order to establish good
estimates of what is out there.
Also, it is worth noting that although scientists cannot currently count every object that floats around out there, they do the very best they can
with what they have. Considering the vast numbers involved, and the possibility of objects vectored from unusual or anomalous angles, I find it odd
that they do not miss more.