YU55 Closer Than JPL Indicates?

1. null
   

reply to post by jeichelberg


November 4 - 11 where Nov 9 is the 0th day (referencing 0 based day system approaching closest distance day)
Date Ref App Dist.
4 -5 0.0391
5 -4 0.0312
6 -3 0.0234
7 -2 0.0156
8 -1 0.0079
9 0 0.0022
10 1 0.0085
11 2 0.0162

Then I interpolate a per hour basis. So it looks something like where Ref App shows interpolation of days and resulting distances.

Date Ref App Dist.
4 -5 -0.0391
-4.958333333 -0.038770833
-4.916666667 -0.038441667
-4.875 -0.0381125
etc. etc.

And came up with this during the course of Nov 8th:

8 -1 -0.0079
-0.958333333 -0.007479167
-0.916666667 -0.007058333
-0.875 -0.0066375
-0.833333333 -0.006216667
-0.791666667 -0.005795833
-0.75 -0.005375
-0.708333333 -0.004954167
-0.666666667 -0.004533333
-0.625 -0.0041125
-0.583333333 -0.003691667
-0.541666667 -0.003270833
-0.5 -0.00285
-0.458333333 -0.002429167
-0.416666667 -0.002008333
-0.375 -0.0015875
-0.333333333 -0.001166667
-0.291666667 -0.000745833
-0.25 -0.000325
-0.208333333 9.58333E-05
-0.166666667 0.000516667
-0.125 0.0009375
-0.083333333 0.001358333
-0.041666667 0.001779167
9 0 0.0022

Which indicates that the close approach distance is actually 0.0000958333 AU at about 7pm.

When I plotted this across the close approach date (9th, or day 0), I saw an odd jink (referenced above by differing distance decay), indicating that the supposed close approach distance (.0022) was further than the distance that the data would indicate IF (0, .0022) was not a 'known' point in the data.
So, I took the same approach, except using this data as reference:

Date Ref App Dist.
4 -5 -0.0391
5 -4 -0.0312
6 -3 -0.0234
7 -2 -0.0156
8 -1 -0.0079
10 1 0.0085
11 2 0.0162

Now things get interesting. According to this data, removing the supposed close approach distance which made me suspicious, the following is what the 8th looks like:

Day Time Dist
8th -1 -0.0079
-0.958333333 -0.007558333
-0.916666667 -0.007216667
-0.875 -0.006875
-0.833333333 -0.006533333
-0.791666667 -0.006191667
-0.75 -0.00585
-0.708333333 -0.005508333
-0.666666667 -0.005166667
-0.625 -0.004825
-0.583333333 -0.004483333
-0.541666667 -0.004141667
-0.5 -0.0038
-0.458333333 -0.003458333
-0.416666667 -0.003116667
-0.375 -0.002775
-0.333333333 -0.002433333
-0.291666667 -0.002091667
-0.25 -0.00175
-0.208333333 -0.001408333
-0.166666667 -0.001066667
-0.125 -0.000725
-0.083333333 -0.000383333
-0.041666667 -4.16667E-05
9th 0 0.0003
0.041666667 0.000641667
0.083333333 0.000983333

UGH... I have it all spaced out really nicely in the comment field... but it doesnt come thought well. Its basically (Date) (Days from close approach referencing 0) (Distance at that time)

reply to post by Jason88


Tinkerhaus is simply referring to speculation on another thread that it will hit the Atlantic - but there have been more theads suggesting the Pacific (specifcally off Korea).

Obviously, the Pacific is always the most likely place for any impact. Continents - comprising only 30% of the surface - are the least likely and thus a mid continental location will always be the most likely safe place.

reply to post by TomServo


I think I see the problem. You are assuming a constant rate of approach?

You realize that the rate of change in the range decreases the closer the asteroid is to close approach right? Think of a car driving toward you but not on a collision course. For a while its speed relative toward you will be quite constant but as it passes that relative speed will decrease, then increase as it begins moving further away. The closer the approach is to you the smaller the "window" but it will always be there.

But this isn't even that simple. Put the car on a curving path and you in another car on a different curving path (in 3D). The same thing happens. You cannot assume a constant rate through the approach. That is why there is a curve in the high resolution data. That is why you see your "blip" in the data. You are missing the change in velocity as close approach nears. The data you are using does not have the resolution to show it.

In case anyone is still wondering, the asteroid will be passing closest to Earth Tuesday evening Nov. 8th at 6:28 pm. (2328 GMT)
Space.com says the asteroid can best be viewed from the East Coast of the U.S.

www.space.com...

reply to post by TomServo


You do realise that no-one else has the faintest idea what those figures mean?

reply to post by TomServo


Excellent work, you've been very thorough. Sadly I have neither the patience or time to read through all four pages of replies, and was going to drop it when I saw your error (a very easy one to make if your not used to working with objects in space), assuming that someone else would have noticed and commented by now.
BUT, I decided to comment just in case no one else had spotted it.
You're forgetting GRAVITY! The apparent glitch in JPL's data set - the distance/speed discrepancy you spotted, it's what you'd expect to see when a object is affected by the gravity of another object with a larger mass. There are, after all, no straight lines in space (not near a planet or sun anyway)!

The only thing that bothers me a bit, is that technically the reverse of what you show JPL has posted should be occurring, so it should be speeding up by the same factor they've shown it slowing down, flip the graph - but I doubt that's significant and is probably due to it being a third generation telling of some very complex data.

Anyway, VFCool post otherwise!

Originally posted by BluePillOrRedPill
In case anyone is still wondering, the asteroid will be passing closest to Earth Tuesday evening Nov. 8th at 6:28 pm. (2328 GMT)
Space.com says the asteroid can best be viewed from the East Coast of the U.S.

www.space.com...

With a very good telescope!

OH YEE OF RICHARD HOAGLAND FATE!

How many times is this guy (R.H) going to make these predictions, make those same exact mathematical equations as the OP, come up short, get away with it, and have just as many followers the next time he rips some bull# into our lives?


yet a small piece of me would like to see something like this happen. 7:05 PM, CST, 19.5% chance of hitting the moon.

Question is who changed the trajectory of where YU55 was originally headed? Could it have been Elenin when it was said to have blown up?

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

Apparently you missed the point as well... The problem is cannot be seen over your range. Do the same thing Nov 2 to Nov 11

Here is one more graph with the points plotted from Nov 5 to Nov 13, hourly.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by mockrock

 

I don't mind researching. And now that we've established that world leaders will be on an island in the Pacific, essentially on the other side of the planet from where YU55 could *potentially* hit, I think there might be something more to this as OP states with his new calculations (I know he doesn't make a claim, only that the NASA calculation appears to be off).

At first blush, the Nov. 7-13 Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders Meeting, or APEC for short, seems like any other really large conference to hit the Hawaii Convention Center: 10,000 participants, another 10,000 family members happy to go with them and a sudden increase in the population willing to show them a good time.

But add in 21 heads of state — from President Barack Obama and W's good buddy Putin to less headline-hogging leaders from Papua New Guinea, "Chinese Taipei" and New Zealand —and you also suddenly have a need for greater security than the, say, 10,000 attendees of the American Psychiatric Association who were there in May, or the 1,400 there now for the Society of American Foresters. And the latter haven't had their every move covered by 2,000 members of international media, who are also expected in Honolulu for APEC.

Obama among wave of world leaders heading to Hawaii (San Francisco Chronicle)

I've lived in Hawaii. It's beautiful. Waikiki, where the world leaders will be, have colossal US military installations that bring all the services together in close proximity. And, the largest mountain in the world is on the Big Island (counted from underwater to its top). That area, on the Big Island, is highly safe tsunami spot that all leaders and military could get to quickly from Honolulu. And there's a tiny base up there anyways.

edit on 7-11-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

i can't believe it...world leaders will actually be in hawaii where there are loads of mountains to run too...this week

speechless now

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by BluePillOrRedPill
In case anyone is still wondering, the asteroid will be passing closest to Earth Tuesday evening Nov. 8th at 6:28 pm. (2328 GMT)
Space.com says the asteroid can best be viewed from the East Coast of the U.S.

www.space.com...

With a very good telescope!

I hope thats correct!

reply to post by dtrock78


Pink AR-15.

reply to post by jeichelberg


JPL didn't account for Earth's and the Moon's gravitational anomalies. As the asteroid passes the Earth will be facing it with its greatest gravitational force, the Moon will be facing it with its least. No other asteroid in known history has ever been this close to the Earth on this type of course at such a velocity where these anomalies have been arranged in such an optimum way to bring the asteroid toward the Earth. It will still arch on its course as it passes the Earth. That much is a fact.

JPL only has available to it the information NASA has collected in its database. Private industry has far surpassed what data they have on hand. They use to have the highest power computers in the world besides IBM, that's the purpose they served. They don't have such a ranking anymore. "Super computers" they have today are a commercial norm, common place.

Originally posted by Aestheteka
Everyone's off to Hawaii....
I'm jealous as it's cold here.

Serious question - does anyone remember the thread from a few months back by the bloke claiming to work for the US Naval Space Command? He talked about waiting to hear something on a radio frequency. At the time I presumed he was referring to 171.2 mHz (or something similar - I included it in a painting i was doing at the time because of it).
I can't find the thread and I'd like to read through it again.
It's just that radio frequency thing keeps coming to mind concerning the 9th...

www.abovetopsecret.com... was it this one? BTW OP great thread S&F. I instantly gave them as soon as I seen your pic! El Pistelero ftw!!

reply to post by Phage


Newton's First Law. The bump indicates a disturbance.
The relative velocity between the 2 will not be constant. But the incremental distance between the 2 as a function of time will be linear (relatively for the time frame defined). It is safe to assume that both Earth and YU55 are travelling at constant velocities (yu55's orbit is similar to Earth's, therefore small difference in perihelion vs aphelion).

The fact of the matter is that all the laws of relative motion are written into the recorded sample data (all data harvested prior to today). However, the data projected for Nov 9 is not consistent with the trend of the known sample data, as I have illustrated (projected being the operative word).

reply to post by SuperTripps


I'm not fear mongering, just pointing out the facts in this interesting ATS thread (as others have done earlier in this thread).

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

Here is one more graph with the points plotted from Nov 5 to Nov 13, hourly.

Fix the image please... Im very interested to see what you have there!

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Thank you for your reply...now, if you could be so kind as to spell it out a little more clearly, I would be indebted...what is it you are trying to communicate to me...That data set is wrong? That NASA and JPL do not what gravity is? That prior observations of this object make it impossible for them to know what will happen?

What?

THANKS TO THE OP for not predicting something months or years into the future. Those 100 page threads take a lot of space and usually end up being proven false alarms anyway. At least with YU55, we'll have an answer before reaching page 30!
-cwm

reply to post by TomServo

If the relative velocity decreases the change in relative distance over a given time span decreases. The "closing rate" between the Earth and the asteroid decreases. Your interpolated data point is invalid, it assumes a constant rate. The high resolution data set is consistent with the predicted close approach.