tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post5171563375184176527..comments2023-11-02T12:07:22.218+01:00Comments on Breaking News for sky aficionados: Apophis risk not increased: science fair judges, world media screw up big timeDaniel Fischerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06585730984676051351noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-62138914151096855782009-02-01T03:41:00.000+01:002009-02-01T03:41:00.000+01:00Sitchin is not the end all (at least we hope not ....Sitchin is not the end all (at least we hope not ... 2014 :) I'm no fool. On the other hand, I have studied the various religions (along with many other subjects) a good portion of my life and the scope and breadth of his theories, how they, not only span, but tie history; both arch and anth together... it was enlightening. My most recently read books include Kurzweil, Gibran, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, William Gibson, and that, as Arlo Guthrie once said, "Is not to mention the aerial photography". BTW, I hope you aren't wasting money on Dawkins work ... can we say overrated. One last thing, 'No proof of God'. Hmmm. On the other hand ... you have different fingers. Peace.Mitchsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04960127810039106808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-70548882152038230102009-01-29T03:15:00.000+01:002009-01-29T03:15:00.000+01:00Ok, Mitchster look: there is no proof of god. Ther...Ok, Mitchster look: there is no proof of god. There is however proof that science works. There is also significant evidence that any work that talks of god is made by humans, not a supernatural being. So the final verdict is that god is the old science, the first model people came up with to describe the universe. Just like the flat earth theory and everything revolves around the stationary earth theory however that model is obsolete.PixelsAndDicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16684560012661852723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-71147777572600854162008-11-22T05:36:00.000+01:002008-11-22T05:36:00.000+01:00You don't seem like a lunatic, dreadgnome. You see...You don't seem like a lunatic, dreadgnome. You seem ignorant ... or stoned. <BR/><BR/>dreadgnome is an example of the noise I spoke of. Maybe he is one of the eight out of ten of you who thinks that some guy came back from the dead because his daddy was the real God, not the God that this real God was copied from, or the one whose name sounds almost like his, or the one that keeps people like Jim Baker from having to get a job but the real God because ... you said so. Be afraid.<BR/>The truth would probably make Star Wars and magic pixies seem bland. Remember what Clarke said about magic. Why do people need their Leave it to Beaver God with his happy ending. Maybe the Gods just got disgusted when we started degenerating from the first models into dreadgnomes and so they just left. Again I say gtf off the web, moron, and go read a book.Mitchsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04960127810039106808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-88794451624375243652008-11-20T01:02:00.000+01:002008-11-20T01:02:00.000+01:00Ok, I don't want to seem like a lunatic, but a mag...Ok, I don't want to seem like a lunatic, but a magic space pixie came and visited me with a magic space cookie. <BR/>When I ate the cookie, it released the information within my brains that the earth was destroyed in 1873 by colliding with a large ball of assorted stuff, mostly made of socks. <BR/>This ball was the final proof of God, but we missed it and are now living in a hologram projected by he devil who is actually Camoran Diaz.<BR/>If you don't believe me, you must speak with the space pixie and then prove me 100% wrong, or I will make fun of your stupid face and belittle you in front of the whole internets.<BR/>Praise Bob.deadgenomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826585496656785419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-75268777502979181742008-04-28T23:15:00.000+02:002008-04-28T23:15:00.000+02:00If we accept the atmosphere to be 70 Km high, it m...If we accept the atmosphere to be 70 Km high, it makes the target radius 70/6300 = 1,11% bigger. Area goes with radius squared, so target area is 2,23% bigger. Even if colliding with the atmosphere ensured a next pass impact, the probability would be 1:45.000*1,022, or one in 44.000.<BR/><BR/>How could we know if it has been taken into account?Santiago Egido Arteagahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14137066752624247290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-88667018137744447922008-04-28T23:14:00.000+02:002008-04-28T23:14:00.000+02:00If we accept the atmosphere to be 70 Km high, it m...If we accept the atmosphere to be 70 Km high, it makes the target radius 70/6300 = 1,11% bigger. Area goes with radius squared, so target area is 2,23% bigger. Even if colliding with the atmosphere ensured a next pass impact, the probability would be 1:45.000*1,022, or one in 44.000.<BR/><BR/>How could we know if it has been taken into account?Santiago Egido Arteagahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14137066752624247290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-28180403157474996922008-04-22T21:16:00.000+02:002008-04-22T21:16:00.000+02:00Atmospheric drag?At 38,900 km?Which atmosphere?Ear...Atmospheric drag?<BR/><BR/>At 38,900 km?<BR/><BR/>Which atmosphere?<BR/><BR/>Earth's atmosphere is below 400 km.John.Sthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06244729674467724716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-10464266389394633072008-04-22T12:09:00.000+02:002008-04-22T12:09:00.000+02:00I haven't checked the calculations myself, but I a...I haven't checked the calculations myself, but I automatically distrust anything that comes out of NASA. There are no scientists or engineers left there"<BR/><BR/>You're an idiot.jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-23796217326691519422008-04-19T01:52:00.000+02:002008-04-19T01:52:00.000+02:00@iisan7 ... Yes, and you read the eight books I me...@iisan7 ... Yes, and you read the eight books I mentioned ... right ? That was quick? You're not attention span challenged are you? Gotta go, I have some reading to do.<BR/><BR/>BTW, that was funny. HeHeMitchsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04960127810039106808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-11771910144624450032008-04-18T23:40:00.000+02:002008-04-18T23:40:00.000+02:00@ Mitchster. Well, you failed.@ Mitchster. Well, you failed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05423494919357437679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-32221455480347716202008-04-18T04:03:00.000+02:002008-04-18T04:03:00.000+02:00Okay, I don't want to seem like a lunatic. A frien...Okay, I don't want to seem like a lunatic. A friend of mine had a set of eight or so books by a man named Sitchin. I read those books, collectively known as The Earth Chronicles and they changed how I view a lot of things ... many parts were profound.<BR/>Sometimes people do hit the nail right on the head, the problem has become that with so many people the background noise will probably obscure the truth even if someone ever does find it. Search on Niburu <BR/>and read the Earth Chronicles, like I did, before you read/judge all the crap on the web. Interestingly enough the stuff coming from NASA seems to try and make it look like a person would have to be CRAZY to believe in something that seems like it could be the natural explanation for what we collectively perceive as the old hairy thunderer himself; God.Mitchsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04960127810039106808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-32476867775599349882008-04-18T02:24:00.000+02:002008-04-18T02:24:00.000+02:00You know, atmospheric drag could conceivably slow ...You know, atmospheric drag could conceivably slow (and therefore curve) and asteroid's velocity enough to alter its orbit, but I doubt (without doing any math, mind you) that it would be enough to cause a collision on the same pass, given the enormous velocity and mass involved (F=ma and all that). <BR/><BR/>Perhaps this would result in a new orbit with even more potential for future calamity, but then we'd be a bit forewarned, with predictive (and, I hope, preventive) faculties intact.<BR/><BR/>Or am I being overly optimistic?byffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08117552061722777175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-48727158211450574422008-04-17T22:27:00.000+02:002008-04-17T22:27:00.000+02:00Remember how the various NASA centers were so busy...<B>Remember how the various NASA centers were so busy with political infighting that they forgot to convert units on the crashed Mars probe? </B><BR/><BR/>I remember the problem, but it didn't have anything to do with political infighting. The error was made by Lockheed Martin but not caught at JPL. There were no other NASA centers involved. And it had more to do with trying to operate a spacecraft on the cheap under Goldin's "better-faster-cheaper" regime than anything else.kevinwparkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07295684405173873224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-77520493662917634862008-04-17T16:04:00.000+02:002008-04-17T16:04:00.000+02:00I wouldn't be surprised to find someone has taken ...I wouldn't be surprised to find someone has taken that into account. It seems likely to me that atmospheric drag would such an asteroid to either change trajectory and head towards earth anyways, or to explode in mid air. This certainly seems to me like the kind of thing that scientists would have taken into account.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09673430765341630767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-46152598101641516812008-04-17T14:56:00.000+02:002008-04-17T14:56:00.000+02:00actually, when you think of it...noone yet has add...actually, when you think of it...noone yet has addressed the likelyhood of a mid-altitude atmospheric penetration "near-miss", which very well may be in the 1:100's odds, and it's effects on us.DredKnothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04000576196317537230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-6793984715685899622008-04-17T13:43:00.000+02:002008-04-17T13:43:00.000+02:00I haven't checked the calculations myself, but I a...I haven't checked the calculations myself, but I automatically distrust anything that comes out of NASA. There are no scientists or engineers left there, only politically-motivated "gimme my tax cut and high three" decrepit managers and their suck-up yes-boys. Most of us left in disgust after the Columbia debacle and their continuing cover up. After thirty years of pursuing The Dream, it wouldn't break my heart if the whole agency was just disbanded. Anyone who claims that they "could do so much better outside of government" is welcome to go try.<BR/><BR/>Remember how the various NASA centers were so busy with political infighting that they forgot to convert units on the crashed Mars probe? Don't tell me they don't screw up. You think they'd ADMIT to a mistake like misplacing a decimal point?The Die Hardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08520881428455968507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1323036399959773548.post-89227535310030360962008-04-16T23:32:00.000+02:002008-04-16T23:32:00.000+02:00Thanks for publishing this. As a former journalist...Thanks for publishing this. As a former journalist, I always get leery when I see stories on the veing of "Young Genius Proves the Experts So Very Wrong," because journalists have a strong prelidiction for this kind of thing to happen. Fact-checking just gets in the way of a good story. END OF THE WORLD foretold by 13-year-old" sounds a lot better than "Kid gets it wrong at science fair."Mister Fweemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10339287419996343926noreply@blogger.com