Comet fragment closer than 5.5 million miles

[cyclonebuster]

Check out the Min. miss distance of this first fragment on this chart supplied by NASA. (73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3-BD )

 

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

 

Why the huge difference between it and other fragments passing the same day?

Why do they report closest approach is 5.5 million when this is perhaps only 9,290 miles away? Approx.1.25 (ED) Earth Diameter.

 

BTW fragment count up to 61 now.

[Tormod]

Where do you get your data from?

 

If you keep violating our rules any further we will close your account. This is a science forum, not a forum for hoaxters. State your case and what evidence you base it on rather than throw out ignorant statements like the post above.

 

And please read our rules.

[cyclonebuster]

Where do you get your data from?

 

If you keep violating our rules any further we will close your account. This is a science forum, not a forum for hoaxters. State your case and what evidence you base it on rather than throw out ignorant statements like the post above.

 

And please read our rules.

 

Sorry!! Just posting what the link has in it!!

[cyclonebuster]

Sorry I think I posted the wrong link!!

This should be the correct one:

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

[cyclonebuster]

I think thats got it now!!!

[C1ay]

Why the huge difference between it and other fragments passing the same day?

Why do they report closest approach is 5.5 million when this is perhaps only 9,290 miles away?

Probably just a typo in the database. 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3-BD is in the same range as the other pieces according to their homepage. Why don't you try actually doing some science and check your data first....

[cyclonebuster]

Probably just a typo in the database. 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3-BD is in the same range as the other pieces according to their homepage. Why don't you try actually doing some science and check your data first....

 

I did that! That is why I posted it.Also, that page doesn't list Min. miss distances.

[Tormod]

I did that! That is why I posted it.Also, that page doesn't list Min. miss distances.

 

No, you took the first piece of data you found and took it for evidence. That's poor science.

[cyclonebuster]

No, you took the first piece of data you found and took it for evidence. That's poor science.

 

No! It took two days to find it.

[C1ay]

that page doesn't list Min. miss distances.

So! What it does show is that none of the pieces are off somewhere distant from the rest of the comet as your link indicates. If you can't look at the data and see something wrong then yopu shouldn't try to interpret the data, leave that to scientists.

[cyclonebuster]

So! What it does show is that none of the pieces are off somewhere distant from the rest of the comet as your link indicates. If you can't look at the data and see something wrong then yopu shouldn't try to interpret the data, leave that to scientists.

 

But the other link does. So why the huge almost 5.5 million mile difference?

[C1ay]

But the other link does. So why the huge almost 5.5 million mile difference?

Because there is an error in the data at the link you posted.

[cyclonebuster]

Because there is an error in the data at the link you posted.

I ain't buying it NASAs highly qualified scientists don't make errors!!:hihi: :) :)

[C1ay]

I ain't buying it NASAs highly qualified scientists don't make errors!!:hihi: :) :)

Typists do and that's who NASA pays to put in the data, not the highly qualified scientists....

[Tormod]

I ain't buying it NASAs highly qualified scientists don't make errors!!:hihi: :) :)

 

Of course they do. And maybe the poor chap who entered the data made a typo, too.

 

Edit: Clay beat me to it. ;)

[cyclonebuster]

Of course they do. And maybe the poor chap who entered the data made a typo, too.

 

Edit: Clay beat me to it. :)

 

Perhaps, one mistake but not two.

Look what NASA provides is the nominal distance, and the minimum distance (which is the minimum distance between the 3-sigma Earth target-plane error ellipse and the Earth's surface). They also gave it a 3 - Sigma.

[C1ay]

The one element in 61 that you have tunnel vision on has and error of more than 2 decimal places compared to the mean of the rest of the dataset in the Minimum Miss Distance column while the Nominal Miss Distance column is consistant with the other elements of the set. You can in fact sort by the other data columns and fragment 3-BD lies neatly with the group. Only someone ignorant in statistics would swear by the accuracy of the odd figure given for this fragment in the minimum miss distance column. Now, back up your claim and PROVE the accuracy of the given value. Keep in mind rule 4 while you're at it:

4. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

I for one will be interested in your demonstration of statistics in proving the probability that the given data is correct...