2012 is a lie.
-
@andrewdavidloftus (View Post)
yes, most of the oxygen on the planet is not in the atmosphere, and by destroy, I mean move... I just wasn't specific... but it depends on the size and what its made of, but if its small enough to be destroyed, then its not worth destroying.
To 'Move' it they use high speed projectiles to alter the direction, and not much of a change is needed (depending on how close it is.) -
The-Con:
@andrewdavidloftus!107474
yes, most of the oxygen on the planet is not in the atmosphere, and by destroy, I mean move... I just wasn't specific... but it depends on the size and what its made of, but if its small enough to be destroyed, then its not worth destroying.
To 'Move' it they use high speed projectiles to alter the direction, and not much of a change is needed (depending on how close it is.)
1. When i say .13% I mean ALL of the O2 on the planet - so it is actually very very small, and actually, 78% of the O2 is in the atmosphere
2. No - If you tried to move it like that, it wouldn't move it, it would have to have a TON OF FORCE to move it since the meteor is already traveling very very very fast (no gravity or air = keep accelerating)... Nasa says the only real way to move it is with solar sails - google solar sails
3. They would latch solar sails onto the meteor using a satellite/probe and then the sun would push it away from us -
@andrewdavidloftus (View Post)
They also strongly investigated high speed projectiles. The speeds are huge. as an example, while experimenting, they shot a ball the size of a large marble into a concrete sphere with a diameter of about two meters. when they shot it, there was a huge hole that made the concrete sphere, a semi-sphere. that's a small scale experiment. I'm not saying that that is the method they use, I am just saying that they did see it as an option.
And 10% in the air isn't that bad because we breath in about 21% and breathe out 16% of O2. (still isn't enough though)
And O2 doesn't refer to O. In chemistry O2 is different to O (I know you know that). Its like saying O2 is the same as O3, but I get the general idea. (btw, O can become O2, but O is only present in compounds)
The point with the projectile is, creating an unbalance in the comet, rather than forcing it away... using its own wait to change direction. -
@The-Con (View Post)
I said that 02 was 00.13% NOT 10%
Also - They tried high speed projectiles - but quickly stopped, cause the material that meteors are made of make it nearly impossible to destroy or push with projectiles... About that last part, think of this: if you put a big dent in a ferrari going 200 mph, the ferrari wont turn around and go the other way, same theory with a meteor... Also, it is a meteor, not a comet... I am well aware that O2 is not the same as O, I take organic chemistry... I am also aware that some of the materials in mars's soil are bonded with O, but as we all know, H2O is different than O or O2...
Also - there is no proof of life on mars or frozen bacteria... There is proof that there used to be life. -
@andrewdavidloftus (View Post)
OK... I have to admit you win (but the Ferrari isn't a good example because there is friction that a meteor does not have.)
but when reading over a comment, I am not looking for a dot before a number, unless there is a 0. you only said .13% which means 0.13% , but it isn't as easy to recognise, because you must put the 0 there, or sometimes it can be interpreted as something its not.
Often when there was life, there is bacteria, or small organisms in the water, and it is at least theorised as a probability that there are organisms (dead or alive) frozen in the ice caps. -
@The-Con (View Post)
On Earth or other planets? They already found a glacier that "bleeds" primeval soup. -
-
@The-Con
So true lol
