Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 20 2020, @12:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the Chelyabinsk-wannabe dept.

Astronomers spot closest Earth-buzzing asteroid ever recorded :

Astronomers have identified an asteroid that's just made the closest pass to Earth ever recorded – and it was only spotted after it had passed. The object skimmed Earth's atmosphere over the weekend, close enough to have its orbit changed by the planet's gravity.

On August 16, an asteroid designated 2020 QG whizzed past our planet at a distance of only 2,950 km (1,830 mi) above the surface. That's well within the altitude of many satellites, and almost twice as close as the previous record-holder, an asteroid called 2011 CQ1. Of course, this record is about the closest pass to Earth, and doesn't include objects that have impacted the planet.

That said, even if it had hit, asteroid 2020 QG wouldn't have caused any damage. It measures about 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) wide, meaning it would have just burned up in the atmosphere.

Also at phys.org and JPL.

Perhaps the Monolith was doing a fly-by.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:51PM (10 children)

    by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:51PM (#1039403) Homepage Journal

    > "twice as close"

    Multiply by two to get a smaller number? That's just jarring. How about "almost half as far as the previous record-holder"? Makes more sense to me.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Thursday August 20 2020, @04:06PM (2 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday August 20 2020, @04:06PM (#1039409)

    Then I recommend practicing your language skills - the meaning was perfectly clear to me, and clearly even you managed to figure it out eventually.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:09PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:09PM (#1039446)

      Even n maths (or in logc anyway) it makes sense: half is twice as small a one, because it is 1/2, the other is only 1/1.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @05:11PM (#1039449)

        N==in ; logc==logic

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:00PM (5 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 20 2020, @08:00PM (#1039518) Journal

    Agreed. "Twice as close" or "Twice as little" "Ten times smaller" makes no real sense at all, but a lot of people use the equivalent routinely. Immerman suggest practicing your language skills, but I suggest that people speak more precisely instead.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 21 2020, @12:44AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 21 2020, @12:44AM (#1039637) Journal
      I think the statements you mentioned were pretty precise. Is one really going to think that something isn't a factor of ten smaller, when one says "ten times smaller"?
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 21 2020, @01:50AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 21 2020, @01:50AM (#1039661) Journal

        1/10th the size is more precise. Division gets smaller . . .

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday August 21 2020, @03:29AM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday August 21 2020, @03:29AM (#1039721)

          >Division gets smaller...

          Exactly. So if something is N times smaller, it's obviously talking a reciprocal multiplier. There's no more ambiguity in the statement than there is in "N times larger", in fact there's arguably even less - I don't think I've _ever_ heard "N times smaller" used when someone actually means a multiplier of 1/(N+1). I suspect because the math starts getting too complex for conversational English, so sanity wins out.

          1/10th the size would certainly maximize clarity, just as 10 times the size is much better than 10 times larger... but we're speaking English, not Mathematics, and English is a deeply ambiguous language.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @06:21AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @06:21AM (#1039789)

        You have $12. I have three times less.

        Do I have $4 or do I owe someone $24 ?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:37AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 22 2020, @12:37AM (#1040193) Journal
          Your argument is irrelevant to a quantity that can't be negative.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Friday August 21 2020, @06:30AM

    by deimtee (3272) on Friday August 21 2020, @06:30AM (#1039793) Journal

    On the plus side, if it hits you could say it was infinity times closer.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.