BS: Chicken Little Was Right

Subject: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 02:23 PM

I could have sworn there was a thread on this the last time a satellite was going to come crashing down... anybody got a pool going for where this one will hit? I think the last one got mostly "uninhabited" Australian outback (which to me meant no phones to tell anybody about who got hit)...

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 02:59 PM

I bought a novelty pin with this saying on it, around 1973. In fact I still have it. Now I can wear it with pride.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 03:00 PM

"According to NASA scientists, the pieces of the dead satellite can land anywhere in the six inhabited continents in a worldwide swath from south of Juneau, Alaska, to just north of the tip of South America.

"It's a hard calculation problem; we don't know the exact instant when it's going to come down, and it's moving really fast. It actually orbits the Earth every 90 minutes," says Steve White, a Fresno State Physics Professor.

However, scientists say the risk of getting hit by the satellite parts is almost negative as most of it will burn up after entering the atmosphere. Only about 1,200 pounds should survive, scattered over perhaps a 500-mile-wide area, NASA said."

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 03:03 PM

Be proud of that pin, Lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 03:12 PM

Lessee, 1200 lbs over 500 miles wide = 12 lbs per mile in a strip that goes all the way around the world... guess I'm not too too worried. But I bet insurers are having fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 03:38 PM

999, that was seven years ago! Where is he now that we *really* need him?!

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 03:39 PM

Star watching made exciting. "Check that one out. It looks like it's coming right at

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 04:01 PM

"Lessee, 1200 lbs over 500 miles wide = 12 lbs per mile in a strip that goes all the way around the world... guess I'm not too too worried. But I bet insurers are having fun!"

Well, if you should get hit by a piece of it you'll then know ya shoulda bought a lottery ticket.

HEY, maybe this is the end times? Mygodwe'reallgonnadie! SuuuuuuWAP! Where's Falwell when ya really need him?

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Sep 11 - 09:08 PM

Get your catcher's mitt, hang out in the backyard, and watch the sky.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 04:00 AM

"Lessee, 1200 lbs over 500 miles wide = 12 lbs per mile in a strip that goes all the way around the world"

I hope you're not a maths teacher Mrrzy!

Still, only a factor of 5 out, it's 2.4lb per mile. That's the good news. The bad news is that the miles don't go all round the world, but over a relatively short distance from the point where hitting the atmosphere makes the satellite disintegrate, to the area where the bits hit the ground. That increases the odds of being hit from zilch to the square root of sod all.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 04:14 AM

All that stuff aside, I got $10.00 says no one gets hit by pieces of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 04:16 AM

Off topic: Where is DougR?

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 07:57 AM

Chicken "Little?" It's always been Chicken Licken this end. Does "Licken" have some unacceptable undertones in the US or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 11:42 AM

Chicken little was who ran to tell the King - was it really Chicken Licken in the UK?

I still think we should have a pool going. I got $10 for 2 squares...

And yeah, half isn't whole, I don't teach math which is singular in the US nor maths which is plural in the UK (and in French, d'ailleurs)... still, when I said "goes around the world" I mean in putative area.

Now, the question is, how many miles to a degree?

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 12:15 PM

Now, the question is, how many miles to a degree?

Depends on where you measure. Around the equator? Around the
poles? Or "slantindicular", so to speak? So the quoted question above is not meaningful.

The Earth, contrary to popular belief, is not a sphere; it's an irregular oblate spheroid.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 04:17 PM

That's the point, Dave O.

Pedantly, even if Earth were a sphere, miles-to-degrees would still only have an answer that equalled longitude at the equator and not any other latitudes, so it was a joke.

Now you say, Control Freak Who.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 04:42 PM

I thought the Pohl and Kornbluth SF story was the referent, but could not make it make sense in context...

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 06:29 PM

What degree are you willing to go to?

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM

Chicken Licken's name has two rhyming elements, like all the other characters in the yarn. Chicken "Little" makes the poor pullet stand out from the rest, which seems a bit odd to me. Since I queried it I've been looking it up (never accuse me of lack of profundity in my private life), and I see that "Chicken Little" has a very long pedigree indeed. Weird!

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 08:05 PM

Fascinating. Or, intriguing, depending on your Generation.

Not to be confused with My Generation, the one I'm talking 'bout.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 11 - 08:19 PM

Well, we were read that story at primary school, which for me is well over fifty years ago, and Chicken Licken it was then. But then I'm a mere spring chicken...

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 10:26 AM

How many miles long are the degrees of latitude and longitude?

You can use the fascinating lines of latitude and longitude to invent 1,000 brain teasing games. As you know, they are sectioned in degrees with 360 degrees to the circle. Challenging queries begin when you realize that the length of a degree ranges from nothing to more than 69 miles.


That answer came from GO Ask Andy . com

Fortunately the answer was for a 14-year-old so I was able to understand the language. The entire answer has about six or seven paragraphs.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: olddude
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 10:28 AM

With my luck lately it will probably hit my house

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,Mrr at work
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 05:22 PM

This is why we should start a pool! $5 per square...

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 06:04 PM

I'll put $5 on Dan's square.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 06:42 PM

Off topic: Where is DougR?

I'd say it was right ON topic; in fact until I opened it, I thought he'd started the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 07:09 PM

I argued with Doug damned near every time he posted. Rotten guy. I'd like to know he's ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Sep 11 - 08:26 PM

The last time DougR posted was 27 July, so yes, it's a bit concerning.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 03:46 PM

Gee... I hadn't noticed. I hope he's okay. Maybe a thread? I'll start one.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 05:30 PM

k-1 says: Lessee, 1200 lbs over 500 miles wide = 12 lbs per mile in a strip that goes all the way around the world.

A little sloppy with the arithmetic, but:

The potential impact zone is 500 miles wide x the circumference of the earth (~24,000 miles), or 12,000,000 square miles. If a 1200 pound object is evenly dispersed over that area, the "impact density" would be 1200/(12*10⁶) = 0.0001 lb/square mile. At this density, the object would be so dispersed that it would be essentially an aerosole that would merely float in a cloud.

A single 1200 lb object (remaining size at impact) would produce a shock wave with a damaging overpressure perhaps 50 miles in radius, or covering 7,854 square miles, equally likely to strike anywhere in the 12*10⁶ square mile zone. This gives a probability that any given point will be affected of around 0.00065, or "odds" of 1/1538. Recent estimates are that there are 6.8*10⁹ persons in the world, with 60%(?) in the impact zone. If 1 of every 1538 persons in the zone is killed or seriously injured, that gives a casualty count of about 0.6*6.8*10⁹/1538 = 2,652 persons.

Of course the object might land where the population density is very much lower than the "average" of 0.05 persons per square mile, say perhaps in NY City or Paris, where it's nearer a million persons per square mile.(??). Impact of a single 1200 lb object at one of those places could easily wipe out a million or more people, and would possibly completely obliterate many cities only a little smaller.

The news reports are unclear whether the NASA statements mean that a single 1200 lb object might impact the surface, or that a total of 1200 pounds of objects might make impact, and also whether the 1200 pounds is an estimate of mass(es) entering the atmosphere with the potential to have some reduced (fragmented and ablated) mass portion reach the surface, or the total of masses that might actually make impact. (Reports that appear to be clear disagree with others that appear equally clear.)

Fragmentation into many pieces would significantly reduce the effects of each individual impact, but might significantly raise the odds that more populated areas could be affected.

Of course all the analyses that can be done are "probabilistic" and very much like "statistics" so we can get any estimate(s) we want, with all the guesses being equally unsupportable.

Anybody want to shoot some CRAPS while we wait?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 05:39 PM

I'm hoping and praying it will hit my old hotel back in Luray...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 05:47 PM

If there is any justice, maybe it will hit the person who stole my wallet yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 06:33 PM

I hope you don't buy a piece JiK. You are a fountain of knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 07:10 PM

Friday, apparently. Pity it's not a 13th!

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 11 - 10:51 PM

gnu -

knowledge = bullshit ?

Remember that last bit was pure statistics, and we all know how accurate that stuff is. Besides, I got to make up all the inputs 'cause I was too lazy to look up stuff.

Anybody want a different set of answers? (There may be a slight charge, cause nothin's as much fun if you have to keep doin' it.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 01:40 PM

Re: statistics.

Figures can't lie, but liars sure can figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 02:22 PM

JiK... "knowledge = bullshit ?"

Je ne comprestand pas la me???

Fountain of knowledge is an old saying of mine that I would use after teaching someone something, as in, "I am a fucking fountain of knowledge." followed by a wide grin.

If that seemed in ANY way disrespectful, please be well assured the exact opposite was intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 04:04 PM

The ability to produce decent BS is a fine art, and one to be respected.

There are, unfortunately, some who practice without understanding the nuances and who need some training. There are even more who don't fully recognize or appreaciate the art. (Neither being the case in this thread, it appears.)

Equating knowledge to BS was my "explanation" of what I had previously posted - and a warning about how seriously it should be taken. It was not intended to imply any complaint with the response - which was appreciated, thank you.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Chicken Little Was Right
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 11 - 11:28 PM

Latest Prediction says the sky won't fall on North America.

Good luck to those elsewhere.

(The site linked promises updates, for anyone interested.)

John