When it reaches its closest point at 19:26 GMT, it will also be visible in amateur telescopes (but not with the naked eye), when it reaches brightness 7-8. The researchers at NASA's Goldstone facility will follow it using radar in the days before and after the approach in order to better determine its size, shape and speed.
מ
On February 15, a large block of rock with a diameter of about 50 meters will pass near the Earth at a speed of 8 kilometers per second. The object will reach up to a distance of 27,680 kilometers from the ground - closer than the height at which communication satellites and weather satellites are located. In astronomical terms this is a very short term.
However, NASA scientists reassure and say that no danger is expected from the asteroid, named 2012-DA14, but it is a reminder of the need to be evaluated in case such asteroids are on a collision course with Earth.
2012-DA14 will definitely miss the Earth, says Don Yeomans of NASA, a veteran scientist and expert in the field of near-Earth objects. "The asteroid's orbit is well enough known to rule out the possibility of an impact."
However, the approach of 2012-DA14 sets a new record for the approach of any asteroid to the Earth. : The rocky asteroid will approach to a distance of 4 Earth radii within the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites. When it reaches its closest point at 19:26 GMT, it will also be visible in amateur telescopes (but not with the naked eye), when it reaches brightness 7-8. The researchers at NASA's Goldstone facility will follow it using radar in the days before and after the approach in order to better determine its size, shape and speed.
59 תגובות
Yossi Simon
You must learn to be precise. I was not talking about the probability of a mathematical proof. A mathematician may be wrong, but a proof in mathematics is a proof and there is no concept of "probability" here.
What is the connection between the number of stars and the existence of a creator? And we are talking about a creator - I am not ready to refer to the concept of "higher power" before we know what it is about. If there is something outside of my senses then there is nothing to talk about. This is a concept that no one cares about. If I have no way of knowing if it exists or not then I will follow Occam's Razor and assume from now on that it does not exist.
Yossi, what are you trying to say about faith? Do you think there is a creator without any rational justification? Is your right greater than my right to believe that there is no such thing?
You like probabilities - there are 100 times more Christians than Jews. Judaism itself is also terribly divided. The only group that is not divided is those who do not believe in all kinds of stories. I am proud to belong to this group. This is the only group that is also open to anyone and open to any discussion.
Do you believe in God? good luck with that.
Beautiful miracles! There is progress what!
If I understood you correctly, you basically agree that the probability of a mathematical proof expresses a greater absolute truth than the probability based on evidence (as you define it).
If you are talking about probability in science for a certain property, then by virtue of the definition of probability there is a (complementary) probability of negating the property. Example If we assume that the probability of 1/100 that a guy named Matid at his job is currently working, it follows that there is a 99/100 probability that that guy is not working right now, but busy with other things. (Hopefully his manager doesn't track his work)
The complementary probability cannot be denied assuming it is greater than 0.
further! If according to your admission you are unable to determine whether there is a finite or non-finite number of stars, then how do you definitively determine whether there is or is not a force, such a force that the limited man does not perceive with his limited senses?.
If for you time and spatial space are finite, I would love to know what is the beginning/end of time? .
What is the size of the radius R of the spatial space (assuming it is a sphere for that matter)? How do you define the envelope? And that is exactly the space that is R+4 meters away?.
(For me, spatial space does not have to contain physical material)
Really interested in receiving from you a precise and perfect definition of the concept that you so often use "rational"
In mathematics, there is a concept called a limit, LIMIT), around the subject of the limit there are sentences - without end. For example, the sum of an infinite engineering column starting with 4,2,1,1/2,1/4,1/8, aspires to 8. Every partial sum is less than 8, but for every number X less than 8, it is possible to find a sum of a partial column greater than X (please check this with colleagues).
Also in group theory there are definitions for a closed group and an open group
In the universe, as a material body is attracted to a material body, it is possible that the fact of inventing a measuring instrument for the purpose of the experiment, then electron movements/tracks in the system being tested, are affected.
What I want to say is that man, despite his tremendous achievements, in relation to the wonders of the universe, is a very limited creature.
Almost every living creature contains a certain ability that exceeds the ability of man. A bird can fly - a person can't.
A bird knows how to navigate thousands of kilometers without aids - a human cannot. A dog can hear sounds at frequencies that a human cannot hear. A lion with physical strength and the ability to run fast that exceeds the ability of man, it is possible that there are creatures whose mental abilities exceed the abilities of man.
further..
Let's look at the field of archaeology. In this field, far-reaching conclusions are drawn, from crises to pottery. Why? Because that's what it is.
Are the conclusions true? XNUMX. According to his understanding, he will decide.
further..
The subject of art and opinions is based on a wide spectrum of facts, evidence, in-depth studies. Basing on spiritual figures such as Maimonides, Rashi and others, and it is accepted that they were blessed with mental abilities.
Opinions are formed according to their own unique rules. The total collection of the above leads to belief. (And I repeat my personal opinion that a human being is not able to provide proof with mathematical precision of existence or negation just like you are not able to determine any things) but it is certainly possible to form an opinion on the subject of faith and refer to probabilities and plausibility.
It is possible to agree, or not to agree, according to one's mental capacity. But before making a firm determination of "stupidity", please deal with the arguments using the methodology on which the faith is built.
I will conclude that an anonymous letter arrived in the name and signature of your grandfather's grandfather, in which he complains that they stopped providing him with tomatoes at his morning meal - proof that he loved tomatoes.
Good day Yossi
And the cucumber universe struck a massacre
Yossi Simon
Obviously it cannot be proven. First of all, tomorrow will probably be longer than today by about 150 nanoseconds. There are proofs in mathematics - in science there are proofs and probabilities.
I can't determine how many stars there are. And not if the number is finite or not.
You said that time and space are infinite - not me. I say the number of numbers is infinite. And one of the parts of this infinity is zero and does not "aspire to 0". A number does not move and does not aspire to anything.
You explained why the conclusion is not rational. You do not draw a scientific conclusion (ie - about our world) from thinking. You can only come up with a thesis. It is then possible to perform experiments and give a probability that the hypothesis is correct.
I know of such experiments on monkeys. And also knows it from other animals, like whales and birds.
After that you wrote that we don't know many numbers and don't know much about the universe. You threw out again the sentence that time and space are infinite (which is just your opinion). What is the point here? You keep repeating it and I have no idea why...
You wrote "By the way, you've probably heard of the opinion that the very conduct of an experiment affects the results of the experiment." You must learn to be precise 🙂 without performing an experiment there is no experiment.... What you may have meant is that the very observation affects the results. This is not an opinion - this is a phenomenon we see in the laboratory, and you can even perform a simple experiment at home and see it.
Again, Yossi, please formulate a claim and explain it. I can't follow what you want to say.
Dear Nissim!
Are you (or another great scientist) able to prove or disprove the claim that the length of the day tomorrow is the same as the length of the day yesterday? Perhaps the Earth will be affected by such an earthquake that it will move the Earth from its place, and the length of the day will increase/decrease by 2 hundredths of a second? As happened not long ago?
Can you determine with certainty whether the number of Marum stars around the world is finite or non-finite?
According to your method! And since time has no beginning and no end, and since space has no end, then "it doesn't matter how many experiments we perform, this is a sample of size 0 compared to the amount of the universe" from any other number greater than 0)
Regarding the monkey experiment: how do you think the monkeys are able to confirm the thesis? You state that the conclusion (as far as the monkeys are concerned) is not rational but do not explain why? (By the way, a very fascinating experiment was indeed conducted with monkeys for several generations, from where I stole the idea, in the experiment they came to the conclusion that monkeys inherit insights they acquired in a forced way)
You are the one who pointed out that understanding the universe is simpler on several levels than understanding number theory.
We, as limited human beings, are able to deal with, understand, and discover some of the laws in the theory of books such as the Chinese remainder theorem, finding sum formulas for certain columns and more in a perfect way. Whereas the bulk of number theory will probably never be cracked or known of their existence.
On the topic of the universe, we (the world of science) succeeded in formulating and building a mathematical module that corresponds to the behavior of the observed universe. Due to the time window that aspires to zero in relation to infinite time and space, we are unable to definitively state that there are no additional coefficients, which is possible, because in the limited window of the world of science their value is zero and is not reflected, but as soon as their coefficient changes its value from zero it is will be expressed and had to define a slightly different module.
Also, we do not understand why these laws work beyond the fact that we are present to know that they work.
Why is an asteroid supposed to be pulled all over the Earth when there is no actual "rope" connecting it to the Earth.
What is special about the material called an electron from the material called a proton? (Or in the elementary particles that make up the electron/proton
Why do two electrons behave the same? And much more…
By the way, you've probably heard of the opinion that the very conduct of an experiment affects the results of the experiment.
On the topic of higher power/faith/religions another time.
Anyway good night!
Joseph
Yossi Simon
I stated truths that cannot be proven or disproved in mathematics, in particular in number theory. I am not aware of a similar theorem in science.
In connection with experiments in mathematics - there is a problem here. It doesn't matter how many numbers we check, this is a sample of size 0 compared to the amount of numbers there are. There are really areas in mathematics where doing experiments contributes to finding a direction in solving a problem.
And again - this is a completely philosophical debate and opinions differ even among well-known philosophers.
Regarding the banana - you need to learn to simplify 🙂 Is the research scientific? I haven't tested it but I think so. Studies in theoretical physics exist and arrive at fascinating ideas. Is the conclusion rational? Really, really not. This is at most a thesis, and in the scientific method one needs to confirm the thesis. The thesis is certainly rational, but it is not a conclusion. Is the conclusion true? Do not know. It is possible to reach the truth by wrong methods. That's what they check for...
Where did I claim that understanding the universe is simple? I don't think it's simple at all 🙂 Don't quote half sentences….
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I am trying to say something simple and clear - the question of the existence of a creator is a scientific question.
Dear Nissim!
- You yourself mentioned the fact that there are truths that cannot be proven or disproved
- It doesn't bother me at all and it doesn't matter that you think that mathematics is not a science.
- Many better than me treat mathematics as a science. The math is definitely based on experiment and observations. for example:
Before proving the well-known Fermat's theorem, conduct tests on a huge and large number (which can be run on a computer), of fours of numbers that have a certain chance of equality. If they were able to find a quartet, Fermat's theorem would be absurd. Since in 1994, an English scientist named Prof. Andrew Wills was able to prove the truth of the sentence, there was no need for further tests. Suppose and they would not have succeeded (in the past and in the future) in proving the correctness of the sentence. Even if test programming were run on all the world's computers throughout the generations (because by the very truth of the theorem it is not possible to locate another quartet), the theorem would be only a hypothesis. At the same time, it was possible to believe that the sentence is true in light of the fact that they were unable to locate another four over a vast expanse of numbers. And it was also possible to believe otherwise for other reasons.
- Instead of referring to your other comments, I suggest you listen to the following story, a story that took place in Arizona in the year 2222.
In the year 2222, scientists took a herd of monkeys and locked them in a large enclosure sealed off from the outside world.
They operated lighting day and night, and the food was delivered to them through tunnels on top of robots.
Exactly 5 minutes before each meal delivery, green and blue lights would flash for 7 seconds.
Over the years, monkeys died, monkeys were born, so for a period of 888 years.
Suddenly a terrible and terrible thing happened, due to the much exposure to light radiation, and the radio waves that were broadcast by the many transmitters, the genetic structure of the monkeys changed. The genetic change created a situation where the structure of the right brain of the monkeys changed to a star, and the monkeys got a lot of intelligence.
They began to communicate with each other, develop mathematics, calculate integrals and wonder about the structure of the universe. Due to the great intelligence they were blessed with. succeeded in deciphering the atomic structure of the substance, the structure of water and more. They often wrote books and articles about it, and made sure to pass on their wisdom to future generations who were already able to acquire level 7 scientific knowledge from the age of 7 hours.
Among other things, they published an article describing the banana growth process. People who read the article were very amazed at the level of knowledge and understanding demonstrated by the monkeys. I'm personally sorry that I didn't get to look at the article, but my friend Haim read it several times
The monkeys have never seen a banana grow.
In the published article, in the chapter describing the ripening of the banana, it was stated that "as a process that ends the ripening of the banana, it is necessary to flash blue/green lights for a period of 7 whole seconds" (same as the need for water).
There appears * which explains that without water and/or flashing bulbs, a mature plant will not grow.
The story is over.
Miracles! a question?
Can the article that the monkeys edited be called "scientific research"? Is your conclusion about the light bulbs rational, and expressing the truth?
- In conclusion, you state that understanding the universe is very simple and I believe that an in-depth understanding of the following concepts:
time, space, space, matter, anti-matter, energy, law of nature, memory, knowledge, consciousness, recognition, proof, truth, rationality, place, gravity, very complicated,
Neither you, nor I, nor many others understand the absolute meaning of these concepts.
Many scientists discuss and publish scientific articles, on the subject of deciphering the term "time".
You will notice that I did not address the issue of faith at all.
And it's not at all clear to me what we're talking about?
On how to take a sheet of paper, draw on it a graphic, three-dimensional system of axes, describing the position of the constellation of stars, on the date 01/01/1111 at one hour and seven minutes.? (Since the world is in constant motion, the position on the graph changes continuously).
Miracles! In any case, please do not rush to respond. Please try to think a little and relate to the conceptual message and not to trifles.
Best regards! Joseph
To the doubter! I read your comment. I totally understand what you mean.
I am not trying to convince anyone and determine whether they are wrong or right.
I am trying, at this point unsuccessfully, to imply that no one person has a monopoly on wisdom.
And that it is not possible to easily and with the swing of a keyboard dismiss the opinions of others, without at least trying to understand the system of considerations of the other opinion.
Best regards! Joseph
Yossi Simon
You wrote "I believe that it is not possible for a human being to prove or deny the existence of God decisively" - but that's not how science works!!!!
"My grandfather's grandfather did not like tomatoes" - here is a sentence that cannot be proven or denied. What is the difference between this and the existence of God??
For me the 2 questions are similar. I have no way to prove, I have no way to deny and it has no effect on my life or the world at all. Just meaningless questions.
Yossi Simon
Your description of science does not fit mathematics - there are no experiments and no observations. Theory does not match the evidence. This is an uninteresting philosophical question - it's purely semantics. You want to think that ethics is a science - your right. There is nothing wrong with that. I think differently.
And again - you are doing a "dirty" exercise on the subject of analogy. You conclude from this that mathematics is difficult, that understanding the universe is more difficult. The universe is simple from number theory in orders of magnitude!!!!!
You write, casually "fly the universe into the unknown." – I have no idea what you mean. Beyond that, it has no importance.
You claim that understanding the universe is complicated. You are probably right. And now you invent something else for us that there is absolutely no reason to think exists, something that is far beyond the complicated universe - and you try to convince me in a rational way that it might exist.
I don't claim to understand the universe. You claim that there is something beyond the universe. I don't understand one bit what makes you think that.
And regarding root 2 - again, there are much simpler examples of unsolved problems in number theory. Why are you taking a complicated example? This is the Goldbach hypothesis - simple and understandable, which can be explained in a few words.
"Every even number (except 2) can be expressed by the sum of two primes". How simple and how difficult...
Hello in.
First, you phrased the question well.
1. Agree that not knowing the answer to a very simple question is not "proof" (assuming that by proof we mean the same thing) of the existence of an unknown force. In the same information that knowing the answer does not prove the opposite, the negation of an unknown force.
2. I believe that it is not possible for a human being to prove or deny the existence of God in a decisive way.
3. I believe that a person is able to relate to a collection of facts and ideas that will lead him to one belief or another.
4. Regarding having an ideological polemic, in my opinion, it is necessary to arrive with a willingness to change one's mind in case of persuasion, and it is also necessary to reach full agreement on the polemic method.
The exercise with the root 2 is intended to make it clear to people who pride themselves on rational thinking and are quick to judge everything that is not acceptable to them, how limited our minds are.
And this can be answered:
Not knowing the answer to any question is not proof of the existence of God.
Below is an attempt to clarify the wording of your question:
In the decimal (infinite) description of the number "root of two" is there a digit from which an even digit and an odd digit alternately appear further down the chain?
or in your wording:
a question?
Is there a natural number N such that after the first N digits of the decimal number describing the number "root two", the order of appearance of the remaining digits is a sequence of pairs of digits where the first is even and the second is odd?
And that's a completely different question than you formulated the first time.
To put things in order, I quote:
"a question?
Is there a natural number N such that after the first N digits, the order of appearance of the remaining digits is a sequence of pairs of digits where the first is even and the second is odd?"
If you want to receive a factual answer, please:
1) Be brief in your words.
2) Your words are accurate.
3) Do not twist with the questions in order to get the answers you desire. Ask in a matter-of-fact way and get a matter-of-fact answer first first and last last.
Hello miracles! Hello to those who follow!
They say: the tomato is the queen of the salad
Mathematics is the queen of the sciences
Science: The root of the term science is knowledge. The fields of knowledge have no boundaries. The meaning of the concept of science is knowledge and wisdom.
Scientific research: systematic research in a certain profession based on facts, observations, or experiments which can end up as a summary of laws, rules and truths.
If you look in the Bible, Book of Chronicles XNUMX, Chapter XNUMX, Verse XNUMX, it says there:
Solomon asks God, "Now give me wisdom and knowledge, and I will go out..." And in verse XNUMX, it is said, "And God said to Solomon, ``Yes. And ask you for wisdom and knowledge that you will judge.." And further on, the concept of science is mentioned. So explain the term science as you wish.
In any case, mathematics - beyond the various insights it produces, is an excellent tool for thinking, and a development tool for creative thinking.
The form of its structure and the absolute meticulousness it requires, is a symbol of how knowledge investigation should be carried out, and how careful one should be in drawing conclusions.
Another aspect of mathematics - from the field of mathematics, very simple problems can be pulled out and presented, even problems with one vanishing point, to people who claim to be rational, by putting them in their place, because if such a simple problem is difficult for them to deal with, then where do they have the confidence and assurance that they firmly understand the universe, for example?
You asked what root 2 is? Below is an explanation.
Root 2 expresses the ratio of one side to one of the sides in an isosceles right triangle. What makes this number unique is that it cannot be expressed using the familiar numbers - the above number is included in the group of irrational numbers. There is also a mathematical proof of this, a quite simple proof. That's it as a thinking exercise.
I assume that the amount of "rationale" needed to solve the problem I presented is less than the amount of "rationale" needed to understand the universe. am I wrong? The question simply serves as an internal test of the degree of rationality inherent in a person.
I am very happy that you cited Mishpat Gidel regarding the completeness and consistency of a closed Torah such as the group theory for example. This is exactly what I am trying to explain to you in a clumsy way.
The sentence simply means that the concept of contradiction from one whole Torah to another whole Torah has no meaning.
Regarding the thought exercises I presented, it seems to me that you simply did not get to the root of the matter.
Forget for a moment the concept of space you know.
Let us build our own linear space.
-Choose one point in space wherever you want. We got a space with 0 dimensions. (The point is called the zero point or the center point is marked with the letter O)
- Move straight A through the point O in any direction you want, we got a space with dimension 1.
- Choose one unit of length (any length you want) and mark points on the line that express multiples of the length. The marking will be in both directions where on one side the marking will express a positive distance and the opposite will express a third distance.
- Pass another straight line B that passes through the center point but is different from A
- Move all the possible straight lines passing through the straight lines A and B.
- The collection of all the points in all the straight lines form a two-dimensional space. will call the space M.
- Continue with the same method and create a three-dimensional space called space.
- Choose 2 straight lines from a space and another straight line that is not in the M space.
-Mark distance scales in each of the lines.
– Fly the universe into the unknown.
- We are left with a spatial mapping that contains an infinite number of points.
- Put the universe back in its place.
- Please indicate in the spatial mapping that we created the point where the moon is located.
The moon is in its place due to a series of events that took place and brought it to where it was.
The question: What distinguishes the point where the moon is from all the points in space? (I chose the moon but you are free to replace it with any body/planet/reality/reality) you wish
I hope you understand the question.
The question is intended to illustrate the limitations of human understanding. Therefore, it is incomprehensible how easily any existence that exceeds the capacity of human understanding is denied.
I settled for that for now.
I will just point out that many scientists, at different times, including Einstein, from their scientific study, and from coming to the conclusion that the human being does not have the abilities to completely decipher the hidden things of the universe, brought to awareness the concept of God of the Sea, each according to his perception.
Miracles! I wish you an average day, better than yesterday, less good than tomorrow. (source unknown)
Clarification of the open question regarding the root 2.
Let us write down the development of the number root 2.
The number is a sequence of digits (we will use the decimal representation) is infinite and there is no known formula or column that expresses it. starts with-
1.414213562
let's continue it **************
The question is, is there such a place after the point we will call N and where it exists (marked by 1X-Y1-X2-Y2 and God forbid repeat the rest of the digits after the first N digits) the digit X is always even and Y is odd?
Like my question, an infinite number of existence questions can be defined, just on the numerical representation of the root of 2.
Hope it's clearer now.
There is only one natural number that is itself equal to the number of its digits. This number is number 1.
Regarding any other natural number: the number of digits will be smaller than the number itself. This is the decimal system.
For example:
The number 10 has 2 digits.
The number 1000 has 4 digits.
Therefore there is a problem with the wording of the puzzle.
Yossi Simon.
I did not understand your formulation regarding a natural number N and its first N digits.
Something in the wording seems flawed to me, for example a natural number is supposed to be a positive integer and its numerical representation depends on the numerical base which can be binary, decimal, octal, etc.
As for your claim, according to what I understand, that even in strictly exact science there is a dash of blind faith in conventions - I agree with you. I have no interest in discussing this beyond agreeing with you, it was just an agreement (or actually happy that there is a tzaddik here who understands that every theory is a kind of blind faith in some fundamental conventions of the theory). For that matter, not as a starting point for discussion, I must point out that every religious belief is perfectly logical within its basic beliefs, those who dismiss religion as illogical do so because they disbelieve in its basic assumptions.
I understand that the level here is going down. Did I say something insulting to someone?
: )
Yes we see it….
fuss
I also did 3 degrees on the subject...
Yossi Simon, with all due respect for your efforts, this is not a scientific site. And here we are not having a scientific discussion (as you must have already noticed). What's more - you will be able to learn a lot from Nissim's responses. He has already visited a lot of Wikipedia links and gained extensive knowledge of everything.
Yossi Simon
Science describes reality, mathematics does not. In mathematics there are axioms, in science there are none.
There are philosophers who will claim that mathematics is indeed a science, and there are those who do not. I personally think his, but that's a really unimportant question.
I don't understand your interest in root 2…. There are even simpler questions that have no solution - the Goldbach hypothesis for example. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the universe. You throw one thing to another without any justification. Beware of dubious analogies, many have fallen for it!
Good night 🙂
Hello miracles!
1. In Rehovot there is an institution called the Weizmann Institute of Science.
In the aforementioned institution, there are many departments engaged in scientific research.
One of the departments deals with mathematics research.
It is customary to divide the study of mathematics into two subjects: theoretical mathematics and applied mathematics.
In addition, I am holding a book called "Secrets of Encryption" authored by Simon Singh under the title Franzese Philosophy and Science.
If for you mathematics is not science then please give a definition for the term science as you understand it.
2. Since you mention the term rationale, I have put before you a very simple mathematical problem (meaning the basic data are very clear) and I expect you to perform a self-examination as to how well your rationale is able to handle this problem. Because understanding the universe requires dealing with many complex and complicated data much more than the problem I presented.
Reading your answer shows that we are still very far from a logical polemic on the subject of religion and science. First we need to reach an understanding and agreement that we both understand the concepts we are discussing in the same way.
I am preparing an orderly response to all the arguments that you detailed and will send maybe tomorrow. For now try to tackle root story 2.
Good night Yossi
Yossi Simon
First of all math is not a science :). This is a point that requires an explanation and this is not the place. I'll just point out that I don't think there should be axioms in science…..
From number theory we know that there are true sentences that cannot be proven or disproved. To be precise - number theory cannot be both consistent and complete.
Regarding chemistry - there is no connection between chemistry and the components of the atom 🙂 In chemistry there are atoms and electrons - almost everything else belongs to physics.
Chemistry does not talk about why!!! The meaning of "why" is "for what purpose". Everything that happens in the chemical and fiscal world has no purpose. Only in the field of life sciences is there a concept of "why" and that is more complex than it seems.
You asked why an electron and a proton far away from us are attracted to each other. This is due to exactly (exactly!!!!) the same reasons that it is happening here. I don't see the problem …….
The testimony of ten people is called "proof" and not proof. "Proof" is a legal concept that determines the likelihood of a certain explanation. This is different from mathematical proof and different from experimental evidence.
I agree that there are things I believe without proof. This is due to many reasons. I believe in Godel's incompleteness theorems because I saw and understood their proof, I believe in the big bang theory because I trust the cosmologists who developed it and I believe that there is salt in my salt shaker because until today there was only salt there....
Regarding your question in the context of root 2 - I do not have enough mathematical understanding on the subject and I have not heard a mathematician express an opinion on the subject so I do not have an opinion on the subject.
Do not try to insert "purpose" casually!!!! Destiny presupposes a being with intelligence. I see no reason at all to imagine that such a being exists. It's like I'll think there's a genie in my pickle 🙂
How do you conclude that Einstein believed in God???
The universe is not located anywhere 🙂 Space, and also time, are part of the universe and not the other way around.
Why don't we live a million years ahead? The answer is that we are in the time "now", only when the time is "now + a million years ahead" we will be there. Sometimes you have really easy questions….
Stephen J. Gould used the term "various authorities" - give him the credit he deserves 🙂 and as with several other things he said, he is simply wrong.
And the reason? Every religious claim can be tested scientifically. It really is that simple.
Hello miracles!
I am very happy to discuss religion and science with you.
I will try to clarify my intention by way of comparison between mathematics (a branch of science) and chemistry and law. Then we will move on to the subject of religion.
Let's look at the math in two ways:
For the first time it is called the "mathematical truth" and it expresses an infinite collection of equalities. Every sentence in mathematics asserts that if given such and such, the result is such and such. This mathematics does not depend on a person and does not depend on the universe. The Pythagorean theorem holds even if it were never discovered.
For a second we call it the "mathematical sciences" the goal is to discover as many equalities as possible belonging to the group of "mathematical truth" for this purpose they will establish a special "language" with required rules. And anyone who is accepted by him is a "friend" and whoever is not is not. The special thing about this issue is that they started with a minimal characterization and systematically built a branch of huge dimensions. Now I come to the main thing in mathematics, which is that every claim or sentence needs a positive proof.
For example, it is known that there are a large number of prime numbers. Is there an infinity of numbers? Only after a mathematical proof according to mathematical logic was an answer determined that there are indeed infinite numbers.
Let's move on to chemistry.
In chemistry as well, consent to the research method is required. However, unlike mathematics, research tries to discover the behavior and legality of an existing thing, which is the universe. The research focuses on different layers such as the detection of the most elementary particles of the atom.
Truly amazing things have been discovered and are being discovered on this topic. Scientists have built a certain module that includes a "small" number of laws that corresponds "within the limitations of the human race" to the set of observations that man experiences (the number is huge and many, but relative to infinity it is close to zero). In the framework of this science, there is an agreement that this module will serve us as a behavioral model for the structure of the entire universe (as long as there is no refuting observation) anywhere and at any time. And that's fine, but it's not a mathematical proof. Scientists have no explanation why this behavior? Why do two electrons behave in the same way and how did they acquire the "knowledge" that they should behave that way.
Now miracles to you! Let's choose a very distant region at the edge of the edge of space, locate some material particle, and please explain to me in a rational way as you defined why there, for example, an electron is anointed to a proton? (if there are any electrons there at all).
In short, the chemical sciences have no way of proving this. Why do we think the behavior is the same there? It simply comes from belief in light of a wide body of data.
Now we will move on to the subject of state law.
In a conventional trial, if let's say ten witnesses appear who testify to the same thing, then their testimony is accepted and based on the testimony the accused can be convicted. Is it not possible for the witnesses to be wrong? Definitely can be! But in light of the constraints and limitations of the human race, in an overall calculation of the common good, there is broad acceptance of this procedure. And the testimony of ten people is called proof.
What I tried to show is that the way of drawing conclusions differs from subject to subject. Even if there are conclusions, there is no mental guarantee of overall conformity to the "truth". Therefore, if a person makes a certain claim in a certain field, and I want to examine the very claim, I am definitely subject to the agreed rules of the field to which the claim belongs.
Let's move on to the concept of faith.
I define the concept of faith as thinking about the existence, of any kind, of truth without being able to build an orderly process of drawing unequivocal conclusions (within the limitations of the human race) leading to this thought.
Let's take the Pythagorean theorem for example.
I was privileged to learn and understand step by step how the sentence is proven (with human intelligence) and therefore I accept it as an absolute truth. Yedidi Haim is gifted with abilities in other fields. He knows the Pythagorean theorem but is unable to understand the form of the proof. My friend Haim believes that the Pythagorean theorem is true. Ask based on what? Answer He trusts me and if I say that I am convinced that the sentence is true then he also thinks so.
Miracles a question? Is Yadidi Haim's thought rational?
Yedidi Haim can also come to the belief that the Pythagorean theorem is true because of other considerations that do not constitute proof but lead him to this belief. For example, he tested 130 different triangles and observed that the equality holds in all of them.
Further along this line, in fact all scientists are a certain type of believer, surely there are many areas where I and you and them even though we do not understand anything in them we treat them as truth. And this stems, among other things, from faith in others. But we ourselves are not able to prove the truth through a logical and moral process. Are we wrong? Maybe yes and maybe not. In any case, our faith is based on a collection of facts that are not proof in themselves but lead to faith.
further!
As the discovery of science increases, so the discovery of ignorance increases.
Just a simple math question that I am inventing and formulating right now. The question has one yes and no answer.
Below is the question.
As we know, the number that expresses the root of 2 has an infinite tail of digits without cycles. In a mathematical definition, the number is cataloged as an irrational number (in a mathematical definition)
a question?
Is there a natural number N such that after the first N digits, the order of appearance of the remaining digits is a sequence of pairs of digits where the first is even and the second is odd?
Miracles Are you able to give a proven answer to this very simple question? In my opinion today no scientist knows how to prove the existence or non-existence of such an N.
I personally believe the answer is no. My faith is based on a finite feeling associated with probability.
As long as no proof is shown, the reference to the answer is as a belief. One may believe the answer is yes and another no. In any case, one believer is right.
further!
The question with the root of two is meant to illustrate the limitations of the human mind. Now we will return to the study of science.
The mere existence of scientific research and the discoveries that are revealed every day does not solve all the questions of humans. In addition, he is unable to give an explanation as to why the world must behave as it does. Miracles Do you have an explanation for why the speed of light is the way it is? And why does an electron repel an electron?
KA is entitled to raise and raise questions as he sees fit. Like for example, is a person's creation accidental or with a specific purpose? . Do you have any insight on the matter? A flood of insight like a proof of the Pythagorean theorem?
We will return to religion or mysticism or not.
In ancient times, people had knowledge about making medicines from plants. This knowledge is probably lost. Let's say that someone decided to drink tea with mint and chocolate because a certain rumor reached him that the mixture is good for the kidneys. He has no actual proof of this. The mere fact that so-and-so is unable to prove does not validate or disprove the thought that it might benefit the kidneys. Since so-and-so is known as a thinker, he even submitted an optimization proposal to the "Ford" company on a technical issue. Maybe you should listen to him and tell him what the considerations were that led him to the mint-chocolate insight.
In short, even a person who believes and has a religion has mental considerations that lead him to one faith or another. And this fact does not prevent him from researching and dealing with scientific issues. Halbert Einstein, a great scientist by all accounts, reached truths of such depth that led him to the conclusion that it was divine.
So food for thought. Think about what the concept of "time" and the concept of "space" are in relation to infinity and why the universe is located in time and space (where it is located) (why are we, for example, not a million years ahead in time).
The concepts of science, rationale, reason, logic, knowledge and more are very nice and beautiful concepts, this does not mean that those who use them really go down to the root of things.
Hope I managed to clarify a little bit why religion and science are two different authorities. And you can't tap from one to the other.
I think that's enough for this time, if you're interested, you can go a little deeper on the subject of religion and science.
Yossi Simon
I claim that there is a contradiction between religion and science. You are making a pun and taking the definition of contradiction from philosophy (logic is the first of the 5 interests of western philosophy). That is not the intention!! 1
Faith and science do not go together. I don't know any rational explanation for religious belief and I don't know any irrational explanation in science. In a moment of weakness even scientists sometimes do nonsense. It happened that scientists lied, stole, murdered, died in a stupid duel and even believed in nonsense like "God". But - at such moments they are not scientists!!!!
You wrote "a certain scientist can believe that at the end of the universe there is a planet where people like us live, and another scientist can believe that such a planet does not exist". Let's assume there are. The difference between the scientists comes from one of two things. The first is that one scientist is wrong or does not know a certain fact that the other scientist knows. The second thing - the scientists may have made different assumptions, which led them to different conclusions. In any case, there is no "faith" here.
0.0 [
Added a note to the various respondents
I would like to express my opinion on a number of reactions that have become controversial thanks to the asteroid approaching the Earth.
During the responses, the phrase "failure to train in science" came up. This sentence makes no sense. The sentence is equivalent for example to the saying "failure to train on time".
Below is an explanation: First we will clarify what is hidden behind the term "science"
Science is a broad world-wide agreement, for a form of investigation to discover the properties of the universe or other truths that are not related to the universe such as mathematics. (The truths of mathematics do not depend on the universe).
The agreement refers to fundamental definitions, to accepting first axioms as they are, to the methods of reasoning and drawing conclusions.
The investigation is usually based on observations and finding and defining a uniform rule (law of nature) that well defines the behavior of the universe. The law of nature is actually a module of behavior and is acceptable as long as no behavior that contradicts the rule has been discovered.
The form of drawing conclusions is different between the different sciences such as mathematics, chemistry and law.
As we know in physics, there is the law of persistence which says that every material body maintains its speed and direction (does not need any special force).
A body changes its speed and direction only if a force acts on it. One of the known forces is the force of gravity (attraction) of another body. The amount of force depends on the size of the bodies and their distance from each other according to a known formula.
The speed of the body and its direction is actually a vector connection of all the forces. The magnitude of the forces changes continuously because the distance changes.
Up to this point, I believe that there is no disagreement between the various commenters.
Regarding the approaching asteroid.
First, the estimated proximity of less than 30.000 km from the Earth, in astronomical terms, expresses a very great proximity.
The thought that the scientists or the various measuring tools have accumulated a cumulative calculation error in some particular figure, does not express disagreement with the basic and accepted laws of motion.
Only recently we witnessed that serious scientists mocked Professor Dan Shechtman's discovery on the subject of the crystal, and it turned out that those scientists were wrong, can we say that they are not teachers in science? This is really ridiculous.
Another example.
Decades ago, a computer called "Golem" was developed at the Weizmann Institute. At the time, this computer served the institute's scientists.
A certain scientist after ten years ran a certain program and got a result that contradicts the theory. After a strenuous test it became clear that the computer contained a certain "bug" related to a special command. The scientist was probably the first to use this command.
Another instructive example. During the Gulf War, about 40 missiles were fired at Israel, killing only one person. One missile was fired at Saudi Arabia, killing 40 people. A Patriot missile was fired at that missile which failed to hit the Scud missile. The missile exploded not far from the Scud missile. Upon inspection, it became clear that the software in the missile contained a certain inappropriate definition for the variable, a small length (only 32 bits) and there was an overflow of the number value (it needed extra bits). It is clear that the relationship between the reliability of the missile's performance and "lack of training in science" is purely coincidental.
Now we will discuss the concept of "slight chance". A slim chance means that there is a one in a million chance that an approaching asteroid will strike the Earth.
Below is an illustration from life.
The chance of lightning striking Hannibal on the beach of Caesarea on Thursday next week (we'll imagine that Hannibal is alive) is very slim. And this is true for everyone (is there any person who fears that lightning will strike him?). But factually, a few years ago a man was killed by lightning on the beach of Acre. (unliked).
Therefore, everyone is free to interpret the message of a "slight chance" as they wish.
A certain commenter mixed up and dismissed the subject of mysticism and religions when, as I understand it, he tried to say that there is supposedly a contradiction between religion and science. So in my opinion there is no "consensual" connection between the things. A person can be a scientist and at the same time be a believer. The concept of contradiction is relevant only to a closed system when, by virtue of the rules of the system, it is possible to simultaneously conclude one thing and the opposite. As we know, science and religion are based on different thinking methodologies.
A certain scientist can believe that at the end of the universe there is a planet where people like us live, and another scientist can believe that such a planet does not exist. In the limitations of the human race, it is not possible to determine who is right.
In any case, it is advisable to be optimistic and believe in the best.
Lastly, the issue of human interception/deflection of the asteroid's orbit was raised.
In my opinion, priority should be given to projects with enormous resources. Only in 2012, about a quarter of a million people were murdered around the world, by humans, murderers, terrorists, lunatics and wars and more. As long as man kills man what do we have to defend ourselves from an asteroid?
Yaron, NASA is obliged by law to report if there is a danger facing the Earth from space. Don't forget all the theories that linked NASA with hiding threats in order to prevent public panic, theories that have been proven false (and there are many).
"Pendulum" is an allegorical expression for the vicissitudes of, for example, physical public opinion.
On Friday, an article was published in "7 Yamim" (the Shabbat supplement of Yedioth Ahronoth) about a new discovery in astronomy, which is currently in contradiction to the theory of relativity. I've looked for parallels on websites and haven't found one yet. Maybe right now they just don't know how to explain it. I meant allegorically (allegory = on the way of the parable) that scientific opinions change.
And no,,, I don't believe that the asteroid is going to hit DHA. I believe that one should prepare for it at the same time as watching the sky. Since the technology has matured to at least some of the threats.
Annie knows, I think, something about asteroids that you don't.
I leave the "certainty" to the ultra-Orthodox who follow the rabbi's opinion. I leave the built-in skepticism.
The news that "Vodaut" will not harm the DHA seems to me to be a reassuring trend that the public will not get into trouble. If they say that apparently based on the observations and route calculations, some may doubt.
Miracles:
Annie suggests they launch an interceptor on every asteroid. Iron Dome doesn't intercept every rocket either. I suggest that there be a viable project (with a serious budget) for the interceptor.
I read in HAIV. As far as I know, NASA canceled all its launcher projects (Atlas?) and relies on the Russian and European space program, and the tenders are for space vehicles only. An interceptor name is proposed with R.K. Nuclear exactly as I suggested. The project budget is currently $100,000. It is about phase I simulation, and "intentions" for phase II. The idea as an idea is not genius, it is not difficult to think about it and the problem is that the countries are ignoring such a project. It is clear that the idea is engaging more people.
B612 is a foundation that looks like nothing more than a well-intentioned venture of 3 people, one of whom is a retired astronaut who, like me, believes that something needs to be done. At the moment, I don't have any project where more than 100,000 is invested. The development of an interceptor requires a budget financed by several countries. I do not underestimate the intentions of the founders and not all of them are "stupid". Many projects started small. It does not seem to me that there is currently a sustainable plan. Maybe in an era with more budgets they will raise the issue.
It's not hard to troll as you may have done, but you caught fish that look small.
Regarding the diameter 50 meters. on the site http://www.universetoday.com/33200/asteroid-collision/
It was said "An asteroid collision of an object that is over 50 m in diameter happens about once every 1000 years. It is thought that an incident of this type happened near the Tunguska River in Siberia in 1908". The collision in Siberia in 1908 was not a small event, but happened in an isolated area. She just sharpens the point I made. We would not want such a collision in a populated area.
Your argument 100m-50m seems to me to be an argument. You rule out the 50m in favor of 100m. the principle
important here. The point is simple: there is technology, there is no interceptor, there should be an interceptor.
Yaron
Regarding the Titanic - you weren't predictable, but you still talked nonsense. The engineers of the Titanic designed and even built a wonderful ship. It's a shame that the business side and the captain didn't listen to those engineers!!!!!
How did you get to God???
I don't understand how you doubt those who say the asteroid will not be hit, but you believe their assertion that there is such an asteroid at all, and you are ready for them to put a nuclear bomb on the tip of a rocket and launch it into space. Maybe these will be the Columbia engineers who engineered the missile?
Regarding the Big Bang - I don't remember that the pendulum ever changed direction. Fred Hoyle (the one you forgot) came up with a theory that wasn't based on any evidence - just so you know I don't know of any scientific theory that matched the known evidence and was disproved.
No one is against building an asteroid impact capability. Take the case that in two weeks an asteroid passes by and no one hastily builds a missile with a nuclear warhead and launches it into space. How glad I am that you are not the one who decides 🙂
Now let's add the facts that there are many thoughts in the direction of building such an interceptor, and that the asteroid in question is too small to pose a serious threat (NASA talks about a radius greater than 100 meters as a threatening body).
And now - please check what HAIV is and maybe also the work of the B612 organization. Not everyone is stupid.
Has technology always not failed? Isn't there some probability that there is a variable that they didn't take into account? If we were together on the Titanic and I said I doubt the planning engineers - would I be delusional.
There is no doubt about the science here, but that there is always a possibility that not everything is taken into account. Precisely when a scientist says
I know we don't know everything, I respect him more. And not because he leaves an opening for God but because
that he leaves an opening that his calculation might not include everything. I myself am engaged in scientific research
And my doubt is the source of my strength and not the source of weakness in research. I always assume we haven't checked everything.
After two years of me enjoying the model we developed, 3 female students arrive separately and challenge the integrity of the model. Fortunately, we built up from the criticism and did not fall. But I've learned that I can't anticipate the point from which the risk originates
The biggest one for the theory we put forward exists, and what is important is our references to the appeal of the building.
If we are together in Columbia and I would doubt engineers (for that matter it is equivalent to scientists), is it delusional. At the time there was a debate as to whether the universe was expanding or static. Today the pendulum has tilted in the direction of the big bang, but in the news there was an article about an astronomical find that changes the direction of the pendulum. How many times does the pendulum turn sideways? This is not to detract from Einstein's greatness, nor does he support the static model (I forgot his name). the technology
For that matter, the calculation of an asteroid's orbit, sometimes false.
It is likely that the trajectory calculation is correct and the scientists were right, but the absolute certainty? After all, it is enough if there is a minimal tilt, for example if the angular momentum of the asteroid is lower and the projectile is fast
8 km/second = 28800 km per hour, and a radius of 50 m moves towards the country. After all, we are the only gravitational lens around. and to the second part. It is better to be evaluated for interception ability than just knowing how to calculate accurately. Both abilities are better.
There will always be those in DHA who think that investing 20 billion dollars in a space project is not yet ripe for that. But the technology to intercept objects of at least a certain size and a certain speed already exists. The ability to place an interceptor exactly at a point on the route, combined with a significant destructive capacity of the interceptor already exists. If the scientists know "for sure" the trajectory, then let's use this exact knowledge.
So there is no obstacle that I see, and maybe I'm wrong, to develop an interceptor.
Shlomi
I assume you mean the time of Copernicus - who died 10 years before Galileo was born. And the model you're talking about, Ptolemy's model, was based more on wishful thinking than science.
And why do you say - a scientist, by definition, does not express unbelief in science 🙂 Copernicus did not accept the popular theory of his time because he believed in science, not because he did not believe in science!!!!
Lack of training in science leads to stupidity, and originates in stupidity. It brings you to religion, belief in aliens, belief in homeopathy and tarot cards.
Lack of training in science leads to suffering, disease, evil and environmental damage. Some scientists were wrong, and some are wrong. Some are honest and some are not so honest. But - to say "I doubt scientists", is simply not relevant, in my opinion.
Distrust in science often leads to the discovery of the truth. Even in the validity of Galileo there was another model that was considered scientific and relied on very complicated mathematics.
Doubt is the basis of science.
Yaron
I looked at another source for height... But even 100 km doesn't exactly help. Do you really want to wait for the asteroid to reach 100 km?
It has nothing to do with speed - after all, the missile is not chasing the asteroid, but is supposed to reach it head-on. Beyond that, there is nothing to talk about Mach numbers in space - because there is no such concept of a Mach number outside the atmosphere.
A program like yours is obviously not original. Let's get a little more specific. Earth between 4.5 billion years ago and life began 3.7 billion years ago. There are arguments about these dates but it seems reasonable.
You don't believe in science, but you trust them to build a missile with a nuclear warhead that will destroy an asteroid discovered by scientists…… all the statistics you cite are also from scientists………..
It seems to me that what you describe in the last paragraph is the prevailing theory of the formation of the moon by an asteroid named "Taya" shortly after the formation of the earth. Much more than a billion years…..
Some attack that reminds a bit of YNET.
Arrow 3 See entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile). As for faith in scientists, I'm always skeptical.
Not only in scientists.
It is said there:
"weapons of mass destruction, at altitudes of over 100 km (62 mi),"
I think it's twice as much as you said. It also seems to me that this is what the missile is doing back to DHA and it reaches higher altitudes.
The idea really seems impractical because of the speed aspect and less the height aspect. There is a pressure of Mach 7-10, while the asteroid is Mach 28,000 (8 km per second).
A space vehicle is capable of reaching Mach 28, and containment is a contemporary technology and also a nuclear weapon.
It is necessary to develop an interceptor that waits for the target in an exact path of about 5 meters in order to cover the one that has the speed of a thousandth that of the asteroid. I don't think it's impossible, although it's a huge challenge. I believe we need to do more than watch. We are a civilization that took 1.5 billion years to create. Whether life was created in DHA or panspermia.
According to the scientists, it is estimated that DNA is 3.5 billion years old, and life is maybe 1.5 billion. It should be preserved for all its flaws and there are flaws. We are not a noble species.
And what about the fragments? The smaller the objects, the more easily they decay in the atmosphere due to the heating, and their damage is also reduced in the field. Which is better: an object of 50 meters, or objects of one meter.
Statistically, once every 100 million years, an asteroid like the one that, according to one explanation, hastened the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago hits DHA. I mean we don't know when it will happen. There was a movie on TV that explained how the asteroid belt formed in the outer star system of the solar system, and how the outer planets protect the Earth from attack. And the moon and the atmosphere. A billion years ago. There was none of that and an entire star crashed into the Earth and merged with it.
my father
I wouldn't call it a "distrust of science". I would have done something much more blatant to it...
Miracles, this lack of trust in science led to the great spread of the superstition that the end of the world will come on December 21, 2012, even though 4 years in advance I wrote that there is no reason for this.
They don't believe in scientists, but they are willing to pay a lot of money to all the various participants during mysticism (astrologers, numerologists, tarot card readers, etc.)
Yaron
Don't look down on other people and don't decide what other people think. "When they say there is no chance, we start to worry" - I would definitely worry if they said there was a chance. But maybe that's just me…..
There is no arrogance here - there is your lack of knowledge. On what basis did you decide the size of the error of their calculation??
What do you want to wear a nuclear warhead on?? On which missile exactly? An arrow reaches a height of about 50 km. Saturn 5 is only in the museum. What exactly are you talking about?
And let's assume we get hit by this asteroid - what will happen to the fragments? Where will they move?
It is clear to me that they say there is no chance based on ballistic data. When they say there is no chance, we start to worry, because there is a kind of arrogance in this that does not take into account uncertainties that originate from the lack of complete knowledge.
But if there is an arrow 3 that reaches the near space and Saturn missiles to the space to the moon, and these are supposed to catch smaller objects, what is the problem with dressing it up R.K. nuclear. Here you still don't need the ability to dig and land like in the movie Armageddon, it's not a planet of kilometers.
Last time I tested a nuclear bomb destroys 50 meters of ice and mud.
That is, why not develop an interceptor with today's technology.
1. Regarding the risk of collision - non-existent. According to Wikipedia, the asteroid will pass at a distance of 31000 km from the center of the Earth (with a radius of about 6300 km), and the forecast is +-150 km, which means that there is no danger. Also according to Wikipedia, if an asteroid of a similar size hits DHA, it will produce an explosion with a force of 2.5 megatons of TNT, compared to the Tunguska asteroid which had a force of between 3 and 20 megatons.
2. Regarding damage to satellites - most satellites are at an altitude of several hundreds of kilometers above the ground. In the geostationary belt, at an altitude of about 36000 km, there is another concentration of satellites, because at that altitude the speed of the satellites is exactly one day to orbit the Earth. That is, if the inclination of their trajectory is 0, i.e. above the equator, they will always remain above the same point on the Earth. Therefore, if the asteroid passes at this distance but not at the equator, which I assume was calculated quite accurately, there is no danger to the satellites.
3. Regarding entering the orbit around the Earth - it is not possible, its current speed is too high, the Earth will hardly divert it from its current orbit around the Sun.
4. Regarding observations in Israel - someone wrote here "the planetarium in Ramat Gan", I assume that they meant the observatory in Givatayim. Even from dark areas it will not be easy to locate it. It is likely that there will be some kind of sighting in Israel, either in Givatayim or in a dark place, more likely in a dark place.
Max Power, it says here that there is no risk of a crash, and at most, if it crashes - we don't know where. Who knows what will happen if it crashes in the sea?
To the respondent "maybe" Annie is an expert on asteroids, usually their speed is about forty thousand km/h and they accelerate when they are caught in the gravitational field of the earth, an asteroid with a diameter of fifty meters will destroy a city the size of Tehran, (I wish).
Max Power..
From what I've read here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/disaster-calculator-2004041/
The meteor that hit Arizona is 20 meters made of iron.
And who knows his speed?
And suppose you know its speed...
How do we know that its mass was small (a slice of 20 meters) and some speed was "high", and not the other way around?
That is, a large mass (say 100 meters?) and a "low" speed?
The crater in Arizona USA was created as a result of an asteroid impact with a diameter of 50 meters, the diameter of the crater is about 1800 meters, the force of the impact was about 20 megatons of TNT so do not underestimate it.
50 meters? Even if it enters the atmosphere it will not do too much damage (depending on its composition) until it does nothing, very little of it will reach the ground in one piece.
1. "There is no danger of a crash" - is it safe?
2. Suppose it crashes, what will be the extent of the damage?
If the satellites orbit the Earth, and the asteroid is close to them, there are 3 possibilities:
A. As you said - it won't hurt,
B. It will enter orbit around the Earth,
third. will enter orbit, and while doing so will penetrate the atmosphere and collide (somewhere).
This is a secret weapon of Israel that was diverted at the last minute to a crash course on the Iranian nuclear facility in Purdue.
No. Ben Ner …..
Is the meaning of the initials Han is the occult sages?
Say maybe you didn't notice that you are on a scientific website?
confidential
A. I'm glad there's at least one interested.
B. When I wrote that it comes out exactly with the entrance of Shabbat, I meant...exactly-roughly.
third. Besides, perhaps it is possible to find some connection with a divine fragrance.
Many times I have come across that scholars of Han find sophisticated connections
of all sorts of things with the parsha of the week.
Maybe you can contribute your contribution to the donation issue?
Since when exactly does Shabbat enter at 19:26 in the winter? (And this is not Israeli time, the asteroid will pass on 15.02.13 at 19:26 GMT)
There is an online calculator that calculates the damage that will be caused by any number of parameters, in this case equivalent to approximately 1 megaton. kill radius
For all who are interested
It comes out exactly with the entrance of Shabbat
"Donation" case
Will the asteroid miss the Earth for sure or is there still a risk of a crash, and if it crashes, what might be the extent of the damage?
Does anyone know if it is possible to go somewhere (like the planetarium in Ramat Gan or something) to see it through a telescope?
Are there places like this in Israel?
It is too distant to feel any atmospheric influence. In order to feel such a significant impact, which can cause it to crash, it needs to be about a hundred kilometers away from Earth, while it will reach a distance of about 27 kilometers from Earth.
What happened? Is the moon tired of soaking for us?
Question: Even if he enters us, the atmosphere doesn't kill him? He doesn't explode on her like I will explode on the water at such a speed?