Nathan Myhrvold's “simple guide” to his 110-page NEOWISE asteroid criticisms is 5,400 words, not including refs http://bit.ly/1WklGWJ
-
-
Replying to @kchangnyt
And a simple way to see how *wildly* wrong that guy is, just see the three verifiable measures - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpml/conversations/messages/32032 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
NEOWISE is wildly wrong at times too. Would be amazing if it weren’t. It’s assuming spherical asteroids + fudge factors.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
Do you have an example of NEOWISE being wildly wrong? Anything like this guy saying 39x34km asteroid is actually 6.6km?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
Al the Elder mentioned asteroids with NEOWISE albedos of ~1.0. No one thinks they are really that bright.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
Specifically: any example of NEOWISE measurement of the size of a known size asteroid being wildly wrong? One example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FaizaFaria
1. Their own claim is error more than 10% half of the time,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
2. They calibrated fudge factors to known asteroid sizes, so they should be close, right? Would really like someone to explain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt @FaizaFaria
3. I would say an albedo of 1.0 would likely be “wildly wrong.” But can’t check independently.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kchangnyt
2. They *are* close. In the three verifiable cases, their circular apprx. is roughly the same area as direct measurement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You’re extrapolating from 3 to the other 158,000? Given the approx, would be surprising if it never failed spectacularly.
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.