Asteroid 2012 DA14 is getting bigger and bigger. WTF?

Now I'm not hating on you like the masses doc, but...

A novel reinforcing porous substrate that features unprecedented capability of offering proton conductivity is demonstrated for potential use in a reinforced composite proton exchange membrane.

Dem silicates can hold one hella charge on dem'

[link to pubs.rsc.org]

Experts have been in a debate on this asteroid wondering if it would hit or not. The truth is that MOST experts believe no chance at all. Most?? That is what has to be worrying many of us. Why are other experts worried. Then we have the fact that they have been debating about it which tells me that for the past few months they still are wondering themselves. Yet its not going to hit because experts like astromut and MOST of NASA experts are saying everything is going to be ok??

I want to hear what the others have to say about it that are not in the MOST of NASA. And why they are worried??? Now that would be something to hear.

here is the link to what it said on the news about it

[link to www.youtube.com]

Last Edited by pmb1 on 02/14/2013 05:46 PM

Deliberately engineered fibers != a rock

yes but man made, ???made, either way a property is a property

You do realize he was instrumental in getting the GLP scope operational, right?

And his past astronomical predictions have been spot on. So his opinion is far from worthless.

to add in your turns... you can have like iron ore, or a train rail, but all the same shit out the end.

This astrodog is a complete pain..
Get a life astrodog

Is HAARP gonna steer this thing into Australia?

:loveit:

Astronut..... Will this flyby cause the Oceans and Seas to Bulge, in a west to east direction ?

I ask, as I was told to stay away from the coast for a few days !

MFG! Its getting a "hard on"" before hitting the earth !

Are there definitions of the word "measured" that include "not measured"?


My refrigerator magnets are more powerful than Earth.
If you wear a metal belt buckle, does your weight measure differently on a scale?



Yes.


The smaller the size the larger the precentage that hasn't been discovered yet.
There are an estimated 70 NEAs 1 kilometre or larger that have yet to be discovered.

And of course new comets appear in the inner solar system on a regular basis.
Sooner or later we are going to be hit with something large.

Actual Footage Streaming

Ok, im discussing with a child, what part of no consensus in the value of the supossed universal CONSTANT G you dont get it from a first grade school type of redaction i provided?, It has been measured, estimated, or calculated, whatever you want to name it, with broadly DIFFERENT values, so, there´s no universal constant, just an ESTIMATED and probably consensual value. Works better for your cat brain??? Or you will continue to show the word measure in all of your answers in a sort of a probe of your non points since you CANT provide any rebuttal from the above? or the fact that the original model from newton was incapable to explain the movement for mercury, son must be corrected with the einstein ecuations to FIT the movement, not the other way around??

How can one defame a fictional entity on the WWW, you are just another conspiritard on a CHRISTIAN conspiracy site, I think that fact alone discredits all your "science"

I tell you what, get a notorized letter stating that the notorizer, and one witness has viewed your PHD "your field of study wont give you away, we don't need to know the school, and post it here. For the low cost of a notorized letter you can enjoy real rep! Unitl this happens you are just a NOBODY! Just another jackass on glp and no more. As for most of your "work" I can surf the web and copy pasty too, we all can!

Don't bother replying if you don't want to prove your cedentials, until then to me you are just some kid in moms basement, fat like most muricans.

Astro -- just a quick disclosure question.

Have you ever received monetary payment from NASA or any branch of the US government for your professional opinions as an astronomer?

What I have provided goes far, far beyond that. You can live in denial all you like though.

Nope. Never.

You're not discussing at all.


What part of the word "measure" do you not understand.
Nobody gives a fuck about your interpretation.
Stick to the facts.





???


You're new here, aren't you?


Anything, anything, to not look at the science and data.
You just hate it when reality punctures your doomgastic fantasies, don't you?

Perv.

Thanks -- I trust you then for your word.

FACT:
The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until seventy one years after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish with his Cavendish experiment, performed in 1798 (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Michell. He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell by timing the beam's oscillation. Their faint attraction to other balls placed alongside the beam was detectable by the deflection it caused. Cavendish's aim was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction. In retrospect, the density that Cavendish calculated implies a value for G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.[5]
The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive.[3][6]
Works for you, or still dont get it???

This, IS NOT as christian conspiracy site you fucking mong.

Yup. Measured.

If you don't know what the word means get a dictionary.

Also look up accuracy and precision.
They are not the same thing.

Probably you dont get it so I explain to you, the ecuation use to "measure" the interaction between bodies use the value of a "constant" fixed or estimated in order to balance the original ecuation of newton (the units of G doesnt have any sense, just balance, you know, ecuations), and that´s have no mayor improvement in 300 years, even when the ecuations of motions from newton have an spectacular failure in the estimation of the orbital movement of the mercury (first) and probably if there´s another "anomaly" in movements will be needed to adjust the current ecuation, you know, the way the science is intended to work, dynamically. So now you understand??????? or need moar facts???
and im really bored to keep this tread with a cat brained, so im done.

Last Edited by ADO on 02/14/2013 07:19 PM

What the fuck is this supposed to mean??? you dont have any of them assclown, the "measures" o "calculations" are NOT accurate nor precise since you got TWO different values mutually excluyent. unless you believe there´s a way for a Universal CONSTANT to have 2 different accurate and precise values. That would be nice.

Its really an unfolding death star from the planet Nibiru

Why argue when you can just wait and see if it actually hits? Oh, and happy valentines day :)

ASTRO - Have you ever received payment from NASA or any other government agency for ANY work or input by you? Inquiring minds and all, you know Love your stuff!

You really have problem processing textual information, don't you.

YOU are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "measured".
If using one tape measure measures my length as 180.2 cm and another as 178.7 cm it doesn't change the fact that it has been measured and that we did get useful results.
I'm never going to fit in a size S.

That G can't currently be measured as accurately and as precisely as one would wish is immaterial to the discussion.
We know there is one, and we've got a pretty good ballpark figure.