- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:46 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
That movie sucks donkey balls
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:46 am to facher08
quote:
They are the odds based on the information that's known at the time. I was 99% guaranteed to win my fantasy league. Then Burrow through a bomb to Chase and those odds completely flipped based on that new info.
But this is just math. It's gravity and mass. What is changing?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:46 am to facher08
will that be the end of tigerdroppings?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:47 am to jflsufan
quote:
Watch the movie Greenland where an asteroid will hit earth and the US government evacuates people with certain skills to rebuild society (Doctors, Architects, Engineers, etc.) to bunkers in Greenland.
Now it makes sense why Trump wants Greenland...
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:47 am to Cell of Awareness
United States government just asked us to save the world. Anybody wanna say no?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:48 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
But this is just math. It's gravity and mass. What is changing?
Pri
As it gets closer our instruments can take better measurements. In addition the length of time you have tracked it adds information,
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:48 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Shouldn't the odds just be the odds? What is making them "edge" up?
Current odds are based significantly on educated guesses, particularly guesses regarding object composition. To give a very short rendition, the trajectory of objects in space is heavily influenced by the melting and then vaporization of ice. In this case, you have an object of mostly unknown composition tumbling through space with a staggering amount of distance left the travel. The closer it gets, the more we’ll know about it, and the less distance will magnify tiny shifts in trajectory.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:49 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
But this is just math. It's gravity and mass. What is changing?
Maybe it's the margain of error for our instrumentation to say absolutely and precisely where the thing is?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:49 am to Displaced
quote:
They don't know the exact path. Think of it like a hurricane tracker map
Which, to me, seems weird.
Is it because they aren't sure of how big it is or how it'll react with our atmosphere as it falls? I assume they can calculate exactly how fast it's moving?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:51 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Shouldn't the odds just be the odds? What is making them "edge" up?
I'm assuming the astronomers running the trajectory calculations are imputing more data in their calculations as more information comes available. The asteroid is far from us right now and we probably do not have a complete accounting of all the masses between us and the asteroid right now that can potentially effect our trajectories. As it gets closer the probabilities of a collision will become more and more certain. Just because there has been an increase in probability of collision right now does not mean the probability will not decrease in subsequent trajectory iterations as more mass data is discovered.
Newton's law of gravitation is simple for two, three or even 4 objects. We all did these problems as the last part of first Physics. It just gets more and more complicated as more objects are discovered in the gravitational zone. And as objects move contrary to your original assumptions that typically means your initial mass guesses were wrong for those objects and you update the model with masses to reflect the historical trajectory. I think it's almost analogous to hurricane tracking. As the hurricane gets closer and closer the path gets more and more certain.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:51 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Current odds are based significantly on educated guesses, particularly guesses regarding object composition. To give a very short rendition, the trajectory of objects in space is heavily influenced by the melting and then vaporization of ice. In this case, you have an object of mostly unknown composition tumbling through space with a staggering amount of distance left the travel. The closer it gets, the more we’ll know about it, and the less distance will magnify tiny shifts in trajectory.
Ah ha, you've answered my previous question.
I really do need to read entire threads first
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:51 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
Which, to me, seems weird.
Is it because they aren't sure of how big it is or how it'll react with our atmosphere as it falls?
That's my problem. If they are just making guesses based on what they think it is made of then these predictions are meaningless. They're just making things up.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:52 am to OysterPoBoy
Crawfish prices finna eat
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:53 am to Cell of Awareness
This guy says bring on the runaway meteor.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:54 am to Cell of Awareness
This looks like the same odds as last week.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:55 am to Cell of Awareness
I believe the James Webb telescope will get a look at it later this year, and NASA expects to have more information then. The next close path will be in 2028, and we'll definitely have a better idea at that time.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:56 am to jflsufan
At least my a-hole has decent taste in movies.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:57 am to Cell of Awareness
The impact in-game thread will definitely be the longest TD thread ever.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:59 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
If they are just making guesses based on what they think it is made of then these predictions are meaningless.
Astronomers can get distances and angles pretty damn accurate. That has an impact on the "r" value of Newton's law of gravitation.
What they have to make an initial guess on is the mass of objects in the gravitational zone. They can see the size of these objects but can only guess the density.
The good news however is if their previous trajectory calculations are wrong (and they will be) they can update the previous mass inputs to reflect historical trajectories of all identified masses in the gravitational zone. The theory is your model gets more and more accurate. But that is assuming you have accounted for all the masses in the gravitational zone.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News