Tormod Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 This is so completely uninteresting. We are talking about chunks of ice 30 times longer away than the moon...and NOT moving towards us at all. If there is a point somewhere in your argument I'd be happy if you could just say it out loud (or are you saying that "someone" is "hiding something" from "us"?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 This is so completely uninteresting. We are talking about chunks of ice 30 times longer away than the moon...and NOT moving towards us at all. If there is a point somewhere in your argument I'd be happy if you could just say it out loud (or are you saying that "someone" is "hiding something" from "us"?). What I am saying is, if that comet was struck by something or the comet stuck something that broke it apart those fragments could get us this time around or in 2022 when it comes even closer to us.Those fragments will continue to spread out in shotgun pattern untill something else interacts with them. What is so scary is the smallest fragments that can be detected so far by the Hubble are 3 miles wide, 60 of them thus far. Those are hugh fragments and would destroy life on Earth if one were to hit. Even one 1 mile wide would place us back to the stone age and we don't even know how many of those there are.I am willing to bet there could be hundreds of those sized fragments and who knows where they are?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 What I am saying is, if that comet was struck by something or the comet stuck something that broke it apart those fragments could get us this time around or in 2022 when it comes even closer to us.Those fragments will continue to spread out in shotgun pattern untill something else interacts with them. What is so scary is the smallest fragments that can be detected so far by the Hubble are 3 miles wide, 60 of them thus far. Those are hugh fragments and would destroy life on Earth if one were to hit. Even one 1 mile wide would place us back to the stone age and we don't even know how many of those there are.I am willing to bet there could be hundreds of those sized fragments and who knows where they are?? It is gravity breaking the comet apart, not impacts. (not that impacts in space don't happen) Hundreds of instruments in use by amateurs & professionals alike now do duty hunting for NEO's (Near Earth Objects). We came to this point from the Stone Age before after all.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 It is gravity breaking the comet apart, not impacts. (not that impacts in space don't happen) Hundreds of instruments in use by amateurs & professionals alike now do duty hunting for NEO's (Near Earth Objects). We came to this point from the Stone Age before after all.;) I can think of a few other things that may break it up, thermal stress as ice cubes do in warm water, another substance it may have hit, tidal forces as Shoemaker-Levy 9 did when it hit Jupiter. BTW the one that hit Jupiter if you noticed never had the shotgun pattern this one has. Scary if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 ...tidal forces as Hale Bop did when it hit Jupiter. BTW the one that hit Jupiter if you noticed never had the shotgun pattern this one has. Scary if you ask me.That's actually exactly the point we're making here: Hale Bopp broke up and the formation was *all* along *exactly* the same vector, so unless the trajectory was on a collision course before, it wouldn't be on a collision course *after*. It would spread out a bit, but the pieces are much smaller and the spread is inconsequential at 20-30,000mph. The *only* think that would cause it to change course is a collision with another object and that object would have to have a force commensurate with the comet's mass and trajectory (i.e. it would have to be just as big). Moreover the only way you'd ever get a "shotgun" pattern would be if it was hit virtually head on which would likely shatter the comet into much smaller pieces, or an almost exact "rear-end" hit which probably wouldn't do much dispersion because of the low relative speed of impact. Realize that with this topic we're talking about probabilities that are so remote they'd make Mr. Spock's head spin... Highly Illogical,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 That's actually exactly the point we're making here: Hale Bopp broke up and the formation was *all* along *exactly* the same vector, so unless the trajectory was on a collision course before, it wouldn't be on a collision course *after*. It would spread out a bit, but the pieces are much smaller and the spread is inconsequential at 20-30,000mph. The *only* think that would cause it to change course is a collision with another object and that object would have to have a force commensurate with the comet's mass and trajectory (i.e. it would have to be just as big). Moreover the only way you'd ever get a "shotgun" pattern would be if it was hit virtually head on which would likely shatter the comet into much smaller pieces, or an almost exact "rear-end" hit which probably wouldn't do much dispersion because of the low relative speed of impact. Realize that with this topic we're talking about probabilities that are so remote they'd make Mr. Spock's head spin... Highly Illogical,Buffy Not quite right. Ever shoot a watermellon with a 30-06. I can tell you this it explodes into millions of tiny pieces and the mellon is much more massive than the tiny bullet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Not quite right. Ever shoot a watermellon with a 30-06. I can tell you this it explodes into millions of tiny pieces and the mellon is much more massive than the tiny bullet.Sure, but in order to change the *trajectory* significantly, you need massive force, and [math]F=ma[/math], so it could be a small mass, but you'd need a huge relative force, similarly, those rocks hitting the earth don't do much to its trajectory even if they wipe out the dinosaurs or us.... Bottom line, you'd get a million pieces in a slowly expanding ball all still basically following the same trajectory as the original comet.... Its not nice to mess with Issac Newton,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Sure, but in order to change the *trajectory* significantly, you need massive force, and [math]F=ma[/math], so it could be a small mass, but you'd need a huge relative force, similarly, those rocks hitting the earth don't do much to its trajectory even if they wipe out the dinosaurs or us.... Bottom line, you'd get a million pieces in a slowly expanding ball all still basically following the same trajectory as the original comet.... Its not nice to mess with Issac Newton,Buffy Ahh!! But the smaller fragments of that watermellon were changed significantly. Sad thing is this is one huge watermellon in space and its fragments are 3 miles across.I just pray one of those 60 fragments don't hit us!!Who knows how many smaller 1 to 2 mile fragments have not been detectd by Hubble??? I'd bet there are more than a few hundred of them!! One of the 3 mile wide fragments is coming quite close possibly 9,289 miles from us.Look at fragment 3-BD the very first one MIN. MISS distance. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca?type=NEC;type=NEC;hmax=all;tlim=recent_future;dmax=0.1AU;max_rows=200;fmt=full;action=Display%20Table;show=1&sort=dist_min&sdir=ASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Has a little something to do with density as well. The bullet (or pellets within to follow your shotgun example) are much denser than the watermellon. Further, there is a matter of subatomic forces (i.e. strong and weak nuclear) which play a role too. Example - dropping a bowling ball onto an aluminum foil sheet is not the same as dropping a bowling ball onto a cotton sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think there are far to many variables to even calculate here. I just think they should try to find everyone of them they can our future may depend on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think there are far to many variables to even calculate here. I just think they should try to find everyone of them they can our future may depend on it.No, there are not too many variables. Honest! Its totally Newtonian in terms of motion. The amount of break up is related to density and viscosity of the objects, but the *motion* of the debris is *easy* to calculate, has been, and the reason there is no "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" on the front of USA Today is that the fragments are *not* going to fly off in some bizarre direction for no reason at all (unless we've finally hit the straw that breaks the wrathful God's back). Mr. Buster, if you'd like to explain why the folks who do this for a living should rewrite Newton's laws of motion, please feel free to expound upon the subject.... Ice block comin' at'tcha BigDog,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 No, there are not too many variables. Honest! Its totally Newtonian in terms of motion. The amount of break up is related to density and viscosity of the objects, but the *motion* of the debris is *easy* to calculate, has been, and the reason there is no "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!" on the front of USA Today is that the fragments are *not* going to fly off in some bizarre direction for no reason at all (unless we've finally hit the straw that breaks the wrathful God's back). Mr. Buster, if you'd like to explain why the folks who do this for a living should rewrite Newton's laws of motion, please feel free to expound upon the subject.... Ice block comin' at'tcha BigDog,Buffy BTW it was Shoemaker-Levy 9 that hit Jupiter.Sorry! My bad!! Anyways, Newton has it right as far as the laws of motion come into play. What I am saying is there are only 60 - 3 mile wide fragments being observed by Hubble presently because that is about as small of a fragment it can observe. Now when you shatter something there are big pieces such as what Hubble can observe but there will be far more smaller pieces in which hubble can not observe. There could be hundreds of fragments 2.75 miles across all the way down to .50 miles across each of which could place us back to the stone age if it were to hit. Remember there are 3 possible scenarios at work here.1 being the differential of heat breaking it apart or 2 it was hit by somthing.The scenario "Shoemaker-Levy 9 that hit Jupiter" can be ruled out since it does not have have the string of pearls associated with it caused by tidal forces. This comet has the shotgun pattern associated with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Okay, try this: *assuming* that some sort of internal force caused it to break apart, the shotgun pattern would be expanding within an order of magnitude of 10mph while the whole mass was moving at 30,000mph. Given the distances we're dealing with here, the expansion of the "pattern" is *completely* dominated by the overall vector of the original mass. Unless it had several thousand years of expansion, any of it hitting the Earth would mean that *most* of it would hit the Earth, just like Shoemaker-Levy. If the thing got hit by something very big (or yes very fast, but we'd be talking about relative speeds that are hard for objects that are moving relative to the galaxy to achieve), the relative expansion could be big enough to to create a much bigger vector for the debris that would be all of a sudden a concern where the original trajectory was not. But that's not what you've described. So the question still is, so what if its expanding like you say? It poses no additional danger beyond what would happen if it was not expanding in a shot gun or any other pattern *whatsoever*. What's your point? Magnitude is everything,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Okay, try this: *assuming* that some sort of internal force caused it to break apart, the shotgun pattern would be expanding within an order of magnitude of 10mph while the whole mass was moving at 30,000mph. Given the distances we're dealing with here, the expansion of the "pattern" is *completely* dominated by the overall vector of the original mass. Unless it had several thousand years of expansion, any of it hitting the Earth would mean that *most* of it would hit the Earth, just like Shoemaker-Levy. If the thing got hit by something very big (or yes very fast, but we'd be talking about relative speeds that are hard for objects that are moving relative to the galaxy to achieve), the relative expansion could be big enough to to create a much bigger vector for the debris that would be all of a sudden a concern where the original trajectory was not. But that's not what you've described. So the question still is, so what if its expanding like you say? It poses no additional danger beyond what would happen if it was not expanding in a shot gun or any other pattern *whatsoever*. What's your point? Magnitude is everything,Buffy OOPS!! My bad! Up to 61 now.http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=73p&group=all&search=Search Seems like they are finding more everyday now. Ever hear of "Murphys Law"? "If something bad can happen it will happen!"How many have not been detected and where are they? Look how close the first fragment can come to us. Who's to say there are not any others we can not see? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca?type=NEC;type=NEC;hmax=all;tlim=recent_future;dmax=0.1AU;max_rows=200;fmt=full;action=Display%20Table;show=1&sort=dist_min&sdir=ASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Considering you went all tangential off of Buffy's question (I mean, you reposted her entire post, and did not even address it), I assume that either: 1) You need more education on this2) You know some of the facts, but you need more education on this3) Your intentions are genuine, but you need more education on this.4) You have no idea what's going on and are watching too many movies instead of reading books... I think it's one of the first three. :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted May 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Why 10 miles per hour? Why not 60 mph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Why 10 miles per hour? Why not 60 mph?Relatively speaking, they'd be roughly the same. Think of a single drop of water in the entire Mediterranean sea... What is the difference between 10 and 60 when contemplating numbers like 10,000? Answer: Not very relevant. Cheers. :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.