Astronomer
 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i

Astronomer
 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

It was a reporting mistake, or she misspoke. In another place she was
quoted saying it was 7,000 tons:

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-m...entury-1.12438

-- Ed Huntress
i

Astronomer
 

On Feb 27, 9:03*pm, Ignoramus15027 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15027.invalid wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i


I didi a search on her name and found another site that said the
weight was 7,000 tons instead of 700,000 tons.

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-m...entury-1.12438

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.

Dan

Dan

Astronomer
 

On Feb 27, 9:40*pm, " wrote:


I didi a search on her name and found another site that said the
weight was 7,000 tons instead of 700,000 tons.

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-m...entury-1.12438

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. *My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan


And checking a third site ..........................

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...est-in-century


has it weighing 40 tons.

Dan

Astronomer
 

On 2013-02-28, wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:03?pm, Ignoramus15027 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15027.invalid wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i


I didi a search on her name and found another site that said the
weight was 7,000 tons instead of 700,000 tons.

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-m...entury-1.12438

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.

Sadly, I agree with you about reporters.

i

Astronomer
 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i

You got it figured out quite well.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Astronomer
 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i

You may be the only one with a cubic meter of gold to weigh :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Astronomer
 

On 2013-02-28, John B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i

You may be the only one with a cubic meter of gold to weigh :-)

A cubic meter of gold is worth almost exactly one billion dollars!

It would need a powerful 50k forklift to lift.

i

Astronomer
 

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17
meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.


I just read an estimate that works out to density of around 4,
assuming it's a 17m sphere which is ~half (pi/6) the volume of a 17m
cube. That suggests it is either a mix of rock and iron, or titanium.
jsw

Astronomer
 

On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:03 pm, Ignoramus15027 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15027.invalid wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i


I didi a search on her name and found another site that said the
weight was 7,000 tons instead of 700,000 tons.

http://www.nature.com/news/russian-m...entury-1.12438

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.

Dan

Dan


They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Astronomer
 

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Astronomer
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:02:38 -0500, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Gunner" wrote...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17
meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

I just read an estimate that works out to density of around 4,
assuming it's a 17m sphere which is ~half (pi/6) the volume of a 17m
cube. That suggests it is either a mix of rock and iron, or titanium.

Articles about fragments from the meteor say the fragments are about
10% iron.

"Grokhovsky said the particles were composed of metallic iron as well
as chrysolite and sulfite. While another report in the Inquisitr
quoting the same official said the rock is made up of €œordinary
chondrite.€�" See [1] (which plays a video that says 10% iron)

"Viktor Grokhovsky, who led the expedition from Urals Federal University,
said Monday that 53 fragments of the meteor have been plucked from the
ice-covered Chebarkul Lake. He said they are less than a centimeter
(half an inch) in size, about 10 percent iron, and belong to the chondrite
type, the most common variation of meteorites found on Earth." See [2]

[1]http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-meteor-shower-2013-scientists-discover-meteor-fragments-chebarkul-lake-1090774
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/russian-meteor-fragments-chelyabinsk-space-rock_n_2712589.html
[3]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chondrule

--
jiw

Astronomer
 

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Astronomer
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Astronomer
 

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .


In binary? :)

Astronomer
 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .


In binary? :)


I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Astronomer
 

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .

In binary? :)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


I was thinking there might be about 1001 that understand.

Astronomer
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:09:09 -0600, "Snag" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .


In binary? :)


I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


ROFLMAO!!


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Astronomer
 

"Snag" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used ,
or
something like that. My experience with the media is that
they
are not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point
.


In binary? :)


I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...
--
Snag

Naw, more likely all FBD5 of us.

Astronomer
 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:02:21 -0600, Ignoramus27334
wrote:

On 2013-02-28, John B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:03:55 -0600, Ignoramus15027
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/world/...eor/?hpt=hp_t2

Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at Canada's University of
Western Ontario, says that the Russian meteor was "56 feet (17 meters)
across, weighed more than 700,000 tons and was moving about 18
kilometers per second (40,000 mph) when it blew apart, she said."

What her saying implies is that, if the meteor was a cube 17x17x17
meters, which is the largest object of 17 meters in size, then its
density was 142 tons per cubic meter.

For comparison, gold is only 20 tons per cubic meter.

Am I the only person to vies these numbers with suspicions?

i

You may be the only one with a cubic meter of gold to weigh :-)

A cubic meter of gold is worth almost exactly one billion dollars!

It would need a powerful 50k forklift to lift.

I'd reckon that if one had a billion dollars one could afford to buy a
forklift to carry it around :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Astronomer
 

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Snag" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used ,
or
something like that. My experience with the media is that
they
are not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point
.


In binary? :)


I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...
--
Snag

Naw, more likely all FBD5 of us.

You just hadda one-up us and go to hex !!
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Astronomer
 

On 2013-02-28, Snag wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

[ ... ]

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .


In binary? :)

That would be the "binary point" then. :-)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...

Maybe 11 of us. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Astronomer
 

On Feb 27, 9:40*pm, " wrote:

I contacted Margret and she sent me the following email.



From:
"Margaret Campbell-Brown"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"Daniel Caster"
I said 7000 tonnes: I've contacted the 40 and 700,000 sites and
they've
assured me that they've changed the numbers.
Margaret


Dan

Astronomer
 

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2013-02-28, Snag wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

[ ... ]

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal
point .


In binary? :)

That would be the "binary point" then. :-)

Or the radix point.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Astronomer
 

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 28 Feb 2013
16:32:09 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .

In binary? :)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


I was thinking there might be about 1001 that understand.

Make it 1010.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Astronomer
 

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 28 Feb 2013
16:32:09 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .

In binary? :)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


I was thinking there might be about 1001 that understand.

Make it 1010.


You were already included.

Astronomer
 

On 2/28/2013 12:32 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)


The position of the zeros is in line to vote for Obammy!

Astronomer
 

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/28/2013 12:32 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Tom Gardner" Mars@Tacks wrote in message
...
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they are
not very accurate.
Dan

They used the same computer models that they use for global warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.


Only the position of the zeros matter. :)


The position of the zeros is in line to vote for Obammy!


Not if he cuts off their food stamps & free cell phones.

Astronomer
 

"Michael A. Terrell" on Tue, 05 Mar 2013
02:26:30 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 28 Feb 2013
16:32:09 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .

In binary? :)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


I was thinking there might be about 1001 that understand.

Make it 1010.

You were already included.

Thanks for the compliment.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Astronomer
 

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Tue, 05 Mar 2013
02:26:30 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 28 Feb 2013
16:32:09 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Snag wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/27/2013 9:40 PM, wrote:

So I suspect that CNN got confused by the notation she used , or
something like that. My experience with the media is that they
are not very accurate.

They used the same computer models that they use for global
warming.

Extra zeros mean nothing to them.

Only the position of the zeros matter. :)

Weeeeelllllllll actually it's the position of the decimal point .

In binary? :)

I'm pretty sure only the 10 of us understood that ...


I was thinking there might be about 1001 that understand.

Make it 1010.

You were already included.

Thanks for the compliment.


It's better to be a one, than a zero. :)