Nathan Myhrvold's “simple guide” to his 110-page NEOWISE asteroid criticisms is 5,400 words, not including refs http://bit.ly/1WklGWJ
-
2. They calibrated fudge factors to known asteroid sizes, so they should be close, right? Would really like someone to explain.
3. I would say an albedo of 1.0 would likely be “wildly wrong.” But can’t check independently.
-
-
3. Example of asteroid size measurement being wildly wrong, please. Or please admit that you do not have such an example. /1
-
If Dave Herald hadn’t posted, you wouldn’t have your example, either. I can’t report a story in reverse time.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Albedo 1 means perfectly reflective, 0 means perfectly black. Myhrvold complains that NWOWISE team does'nt account for albedo. /2
-
I know def of albedo. You think the NEOWISE albedo is genuine or likely wrong?
- 13 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
2. They *are* close. In the three verifiable cases, their circular apprx. is roughly the same area as direct measurement.
-
You’re extrapolating from 3 to the other 158,000? Given the approx, would be surprising if it never failed spectacularly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1. In the only three verifiable number Myhrvold gives, he is off by 300%, 60%, 600% from direct measurement by occultation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.