Asteroid shaves past Earth's atmosphere

"Asteroid shaves past Earth's atmosphere"

"This was an extraordinarily close encounter and so the orbital change
was quite extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before," Chesley told New Scientist."

-http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996307

Rudolph_X wrote in newsTvWc.6757$Ff2.6283@trndny06:

"Asteroid shaves past Earth's atmosphere"

"This was an extraordinarily close encounter and so the orbital change
was quite extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before," Chesley told New Scientist."

-http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996307

Did you have a point here Rudy, or are you just replacing the corner
newsboy? Extree... Extree... read all about it. g

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument
on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me
at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite
me." -Dave Barry

Paul Lawler wrote:

Rudolph_X wrote in newsTvWc.6757$Ff2.6283@trndny06:



"Asteroid shaves past Earth's atmosphere"

"This was an extraordinarily close encounter and so the orbital change
was quite extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before," Chesley told New Scientist."

-http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996307



Did you have a point here Rudy, or are you just replacing the corner
newsboy? Extree... Extree... read all about it. g


Hi Paul,

Grok the point.

Many scientists, with 'credentials', like to act as if they know what
they are talking about, when actually they are more like folks talking
about the weather. "Looks like it is going to rain tomorrow." But, then
you get a sunny day. Just look at the recent debacle with hurricane
Charley. The 'experts' told the folks not to worry, "You are not in the
direct path of the hurricane. Relax." But, then they were proven wrong,
and hundreds of people died because they believed what they were told by
the 'experts'.

Like weathermen, scientists are often wrong, as well. The scientists
say, "We can tell you the exact path of the orbit of the asteroid
Toutatis." Do you trust them? "Don't worry, it is not going to hit
Earth," is what they say. But can you be certain?

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before." He didn't give an
explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have changed the 'predicted'
course.

A little while ago we were discussing Toutatis in a different thread,
which is due on the 29th, in another thread, and I was making some
comments that were called 'wild speculations'. I made this post for
those who were following that thread, just to illustrate that the so
called 'experts' are not always correct. The folks who were following
that tread can grok the point I was making. You were not a part of that
discussion, so of course, being an ignoramus, you assumed that there was
no point to my post.

Rudolph_X wrote in news:4aVWc.8723$VY.1244@trndny09:

Many scientists, with 'credentials', like to act as if they know what
they are talking about, when actually they are more like folks talking
about the weather. "Looks like it is going to rain tomorrow." But,
then you get a sunny day. Just look at the recent debacle with
hurricane Charley. The 'experts' told the folks not to worry, "You are
not in the direct path of the hurricane. Relax." But, then they were
proven wrong, and hundreds of people died because they believed what
they were told by the 'experts'.

Like weathermen, scientists are often wrong, as well. The scientists
say, "We can tell you the exact path of the orbit of the asteroid
Toutatis." Do you trust them? "Don't worry, it is not going to hit
Earth," is what they say. But can you be certain?

Yes... astronomy is not metorology. Any meterologist will tell you that
they deal in a VERY inexact science. That is not true for astronomers.

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce,
the scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary.
2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's
gravity. I've never seen anything like that before." He didn't give
an explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have changed the
'predicted' course.

Would you like one? 2004 FU162 was very, very small compared to
Toutalis.

A little while ago we were discussing Toutatis in a different thread,
which is due on the 29th, in another thread, and I was making some
comments that were called 'wild speculations'. I made this post for
those who were following that thread, just to illustrate that the so
called 'experts' are not always correct. The folks who were following
that tread can grok the point I was making. You were not a part of
that discussion, so of course, being an ignoramus, you assumed that
there was no point to my post.

Ahhh... but I WAS part of the discussion. Thanks for the ad hominem
attack. I didn't know until now that I was an ignoramus. Oh, and
without any evidence (and no, your weatherman analogy does not
constitute evidence) your speculation remains wild.

--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an
argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer
clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they
don't even invite me." -Dave Barry

Rudolph_X writes:

Like weathermen, scientists are often wrong, as well. The scientists
say, "We can tell you the exact path of the orbit of the asteroid
Toutatis." Do you trust them?

Depends on what is meant by "exact". It's not known to an infinite
number of decimal places. If someone claims otherwise, don't trust
them.

"Don't worry, it is not going to hit
Earth," is what they say. But can you be certain?

Yes.

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before." He didn't give an
explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have changed the 'predicted'
course.

That's because it didn't change the predicted course. The amount of
the deflection is predicted from the gravitational perturbation of the
Earth on the asteroid.

In article 4aVWc.8723$VY.1244@trndny09,
Rudolph_X writes:
In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before."

Read carefully. The scientist said the encounter deflected the orbit
20 degrees. He also said this change was unusually large. However,
he said nothing whatever about a predicted path.

He didn't give an explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have
changed the 'predicted' course.

Probably because the actual path agreed with the predicted one.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

wrote:

Rudolph_X writes:


Like weathermen, scientists are often wrong, as well. The scientists
say, "We can tell you the exact path of the orbit of the asteroid
Toutatis." Do you trust them?


Depends on what is meant by "exact". It's not known to an infinite
number of decimal places. If someone claims otherwise, don't trust
them.


"Don't worry, it is not going to hit
Earth," is what they say. But can you be certain?


Yes.


In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before." He didn't give an
explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have changed the 'predicted'
course.


That's because it didn't change the predicted course. The amount of
the deflection is predicted from the gravitational perturbation of the
Earth on the asteroid.


Then why would he have said, "The orbital change was quite
extraordinary," and, "I've never seen anything like that before." These
words seem to indicate that something unexpected happened regarding the
orbital path.

Steve Willner wrote:

In article 4aVWc.8723$VY.1244@trndny09,
Rudolph_X writes:

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the artilce, the
scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite extraordinary. 2004
FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees because of the Earth's gravity.
I've never seen anything like that before."


Read carefully. The scientist said the encounter deflected the orbit
20 degrees. He also said this change was unusually large. However,
he said nothing whatever about a predicted path.


He didn't give an explanation of why the asteroid appeared to have
changed the 'predicted' course.


Probably because the actual path agreed with the predicted one.


Then why would he have said, "The orbital change was quite
extraordinary," and, "I've never seen anything like that before." These
words seem to indicate that something unexpected happened regarding the
orbital path.

"RX" == Rudolph X writes:

RX Steve Willner wrote:

In article 4aVWc.8723$VY.1244@trndny09, Rudolph_X
writes:

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the
artilce, the scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite
extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before."

Read carefully. The scientist said the encounter deflected the
orbit 20 degrees. He also said this change was unusually large.
However, he said nothing whatever about a predicted path.

RX Then why would he have said, "The orbital change was quite
RX extraordinary," and, "I've never seen anything like that before."
RX These words seem to indicate that something unexpected happened
RX regarding the orbital path.

"Extraordinary" means just that, out of the ordinary. The typical
deflection observed is small, less than 1 degree, probably much less.
A deflection of 20 degrees is large, so it is out of the ordinary or
extraordinary. As for never having seen anything like that, he didn't
say that it was unpredicted, just that he had never seen anything like
it. Given that most asteroids pass the Earth outside of the Moon's
orbit, it would be remarkable to see one so close.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

In message , Joseph Lazio
writes
"RX" == Rudolph X writes:

RX Steve Willner wrote:

In article 4aVWc.8723$VY.1244@trndny09, Rudolph_X
writes:

In the quote that I gave above, preceeding the link to the
artilce, the scientists says, "...the orbital change was quite
extraordinary. 2004 FU162 was deflected by about 20 degrees
because of the Earth's gravity. I've never seen anything like that
before."

Read carefully. The scientist said the encounter deflected the
orbit 20 degrees. He also said this change was unusually large.
However, he said nothing whatever about a predicted path.

RX Then why would he have said, "The orbital change was quite
RX extraordinary," and, "I've never seen anything like that before."
RX These words seem to indicate that something unexpected happened
RX regarding the orbital path.

"Extraordinary" means just that, out of the ordinary. The typical
deflection observed is small, less than 1 degree, probably much less.
A deflection of 20 degrees is large, so it is out of the ordinary or
extraordinary. As for never having seen anything like that, he didn't
say that it was unpredicted, just that he had never seen anything like
it. Given that most asteroids pass the Earth outside of the Moon's
orbit, it would be remarkable to see one so close.


Couple of points occur to me. First, we presumably have a fairly good
idea of how many objects of this size actually hit the earth every year,
and presumably this type of observation adds to our knowledge - and
conversely, the number of hits allows predictions of the number that
miss.
Second, I haven't looked up the orbit of this "asteroid", but given its
close approach, could it have been a man-made object like a booster,
making a return visit?